Calls to cut support for coal mines after latest Great Barrier Reef report
Greens believe Great Barrier Reef future at crucial crossroads after new report released, Brisbane Times Toby Crockford JUNE 3 2017 The Greens have issued an ultimatum to the state and federal governments after the latest report expressed “serious concern” regarding the Great Barrier Reef rescue plan.UNESCO, which advises the World Heritage Committee, said on Saturday that key targets in the Reef 2050 plan “are not expected to be achieved” and urged Australia “to accelerate efforts”. In response to the fresh concerns, Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters launched a scathing attack on the state and federal governments.
“Meanwhile, Queensland Labor and Turnbull roll out the red carpet and public money for Adani for their deadly mega-coal mine,” Senator Waters said.
“As many scientists have said, our governments must choose between new coal or the reef.
“Will the two old parties back the 70,000 people with reef jobs? Or will they pay back the millions in donations from the mining industry, sign the reef’s death warrant and continue to back Adani?”
Queensland Environment Minister Steven Miles admitted progress had been slow in implemented measures outlined in the reef rescue plan, particularly towards 2018 targets.
In a report released in Paris on Saturday, UNESCO praised progress in the inception and initial implementation of the rescue plan but said reef rescue work “must move faster”.
“Progress towards achieving water quality targets has been slow and the most immediate water quality targets … are not expected to be achieved within the foreseen time frame,” the report said.
A previous report revealed coral bleaching at the Great barrier Reef in 2016 was even worse than expected. The most severe bleaching was found north of Port Douglas where an estimated 70 per cent of shallow water corals had died. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/greens-believe-great-barrier-reef-future-at-crucial-crossroads-after-new-report-released-20170603-gwjrgv.html
In sunny Broome, residents are fed up with restrictions on accessing solar power
Broome residents tire of cap on solar power installations http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/broome-residents-tire-of-waiting-for-solar/8584060
Key points
- Horizon Power only allows 10 per cent of the town’s power to come from solar due to issues with grid fluctuations
- This leaves some residents unable to install a solar system that connects to the grid
- Horizon is trialling battery storage technology in other WA towns and hopes to expand this to Broome
State-owned energy utility Horizon Power allows just 10 per cent of the town’s power to be generated from solar to protect the grid from fluctuations during periods of high and low light.
Small business owner Cameron White has been trying to switch to solar for two years in a bid to reduce his power bill but said he has been blocked at every turn.
“We’re in the sunniest place in Australia, probably, but we can’t use it,” he said.
Mr White said the high cost of electricity in regional areas, combined with the inability to access solar was putting added financial stress on homes and businesses already suffering in a post-mining boom era.
“Businesses in town are struggling at the moment, including myself, and you know these power bills [are] enough to tip people over the edge,” he said.
Horizon Power acknowledges the problem and is currently trialling battery-supported solar systems in the WA towns of Carnarvon and Onslow which can store the power to deal with the fluctuations in supply.
Spokesman Frank Tudor said Horizon ultimately wanted regional towns to generate half their energy from the sun. “Broome will be part of the trials that we are looking at across all of our different systems, if that proves worthwhile then we will gradually roll it out,” he said.
But Mr White said he was not going to wait any longer, opting instead to disconnect from the grid and rely solely on the sun. “I’m going it alone, I’m determined to do it myself,” he said.
Australians’ opposition to subsidising Adano coal project – ranges from 70 to 86 per cent
Frydenberg’s carbon capture pipe dream, The Saturday Paper Paul Bongiorno , 3 June 17 “….. no matter what voters think of the [Adani coal] project, they are overwhelmingly against any taxpayer funds bankrolling the Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. Research by the advocacy group GetUp! in marginal seats in Queensland and elsewhere has found resolute opposition to any government loan. Paul Oosting from GetUp! says opposition ranges from 70 to 86 per cent depending on the seat. He has mobilised dozens of his 350,000 members to make 50,000 scripted phone calls into marginal seats in Queensland and around the nation.It sort of worked with the Palaszczuk Labor government. Much to the delight of Adani, the premier organised a royalties pause. The miner will be given 60 years to pay the tax, although he will attract an interest charge for any delay. That puts all the risk on taxpayers if the project fails to perform as promised or Adani’s labyrinthine company structure for the mine collapses. With some companies registered in the Cayman Islands the existence of a lucrative escape hatch for Adani cannot be ruled out.
Ominously, Indian newspapers are reporting Adani is under pressure to sell its Australian assets. The Reserve Bank of India is worried about a looming debt crisis and is pressuring banks to demand repayment of loans worth billions of dollars. The influential Hindu newspaper noted that the Standard Chartered Bank recalled loans of $2.5 billion from Adani and that “global lenders have backed out from funding the $US10 billion coalmine development project. State Bank of India also declined to offer a loan despite signing an MoU [memorandum of understanding] to fund the group with $1 billion”. What all of this means for Adani’s bid to get a concessional billion-dollar loan from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is not yet known. It should make it highly unlikely, but given the zealotry of Canavan and his leader Barnaby Joyce for the project such concerns are a mere bagatelle.
Again we have seen Turnbull’s need for pragmatic appeasement of the conservatives in his ranks undermine his brand on the environment and climate change. It probably goes a long way to explain why again in this week’s opinion polls he is still deep in negative territory for approval of his performance and Labor’s lead looks entrenched.
The resignation of Dr Peter Hendy from the inner sanctum of the prime minister’s offices is being read by some in the Liberal Party as a sign the government’s days are numbered. The economist, long-time Liberal apparatchik and former MP is planning to hang up his shingle as a consultant. “He wants to cash in on his contacts while they are still in power,” was one explanation. Another was: “Peter’s been around a long time and knows when a vote is cemented in.”
On that view Hendy is not waiting to see if the handful of pro-Adani seats in Queensland will be enough to save the federal government. Its chances are up in smoke and out the chimney – like the Beijing carbon capture pilot project. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2017/06/03/frydenbergs-carbon-capture-pipe-dream/14964120004723
Australia’s diplomats called “weasels” on Australia’s stand against nuclear weapons ban treaty
Anti-nuclear campaigners are scathing.
“Australia’s disruptive behaviour at the working group only served to isolate us from the vast majority of nations who are now working to ban nuclear weapons at the United Nations,” said Gem Romuld from ICAN.
“Australia’s moves backfired when the working group voted overwhelmingly in support of a ban; it was a wake-up call for DFAT.
“Australia is standing with the Trump administration and clinging to the dangerous concept that these weapons of mass destruction make us safe
Australia’s stance on the nuclear weapons ban treaty – and why our diplomats were labelled ‘weasels’, ABC News By political reporter Stephen Dziedzic 3 June 17 Scott Ludlam ……….”Weasels. They called us weasels.”Did other delegates refer to the Australian delegates as weasels?”
It was an unusual question, but officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) sitting opposite the Senator did not look confused. They knew exactly what he was talking about.
And the exchange that followed briefly illuminated the most recent global negotiations to end nuclear weapons — and Australia’s role in them.
What’s the new agreement?Right now, more than 120 nations are trying to introduce a ban on nuclear weapons. A United Nations panel has now released a draft treaty. States who sign it would be forbidden from developing or manufacturing nuclear weapons. They would also have to get rid of any weapons they already possess.
The treaty’s champions argue the proliferation of nuclear weapons is an existential threat to humankind. And they say the woeful pace of global disarmament proves there is a compelling need for a new agreement that would exert moral pressure on states to disarm.
But there are plenty of problems.
First, none of the nine nuclear powers — including the US, Russia, China and the UK — support the new treaty.
Neither does Australia. The Federal Government has refused to take part in the treaty negotiations.
Why does Australia oppose the ban treaty? First, Australia argues that the treaty ignores geopolitical reality. Hardheads in the Government say that while everyone would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, the strategic environment is actually becoming more volatile and dangerous.They argue the US nuclear umbrella provides vital deterrence, and protects Australia.
For example, DFAT talking points obtained by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) say Australia “must be realistic about the environment in which we operate — North Korean provocations and nuclear tests are a case in point”……….
Why were we called the weasels? Continue reading
Donald Trump is more honest about climate inaction than Malcolm Turnbull is
Brisbane Times Richard Denniss, 2 June 17 There is a depressing honesty about Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It stands in stark contrast to the hypocrisy of Malcolm Turnbull’s big talk on climate change, which is accompanied by a $1 billion subsidy for the enormous new Adani coal mine. At least Trump is doing what he said he would do.
Trump shows his contempt for the world’s problems by withdrawing from a global agreement on the basis that he doesn’t think it’s in his nation’s interest, while Turnbull shows his contempt by remaining in that same agreement while funding the construction of a new coal mine that will still operate in 2080. Which is worse?
The “business case” for Turnbull’s coal line from the Adani mine to the Great Barrier Reef is that five other major coal mines will also be built in the Galilee basin. In the words of Resources Minister Matt Canavan, “what I’d expect to see, with the federal government wanting to open the Galilee basin, is that the rail line’s open access that other mines can use it and that we can, by building, connecting up a new coal basin in our country, create wealth, not just in one individual project but right across the board, that’s what we’d like to see”. Combined with the Adani mine, the other mines Canavan referred to would together produce 300 million tonnes of coal a year.
To put Turnbull’s coal expansion plans into context, Australia is already the world’s largest coal exporter. At 388 million tonnes in 2015-16, we have a larger share of the traded coal market than Saudi Arabia has of the world oil market. And the Australian government hopes to facilitate a doubling of our coal exports.
Think about that. Australia is a signatory to an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero in 33 years’ time. And Turnbull wants to subsidise the opening-up of a new coal basin in the hope that it will export an extra 300 million tonnes of coal a year. …….http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/donald-trump-is-more-honest-about-climate-inaction-than-malcolm-turnbull-20170602-gwj4nj.html
Aboriginal Referendum Council and The ABC’s Q and A betrayal of the Aboriginal cause.
Perfecting Trickery: Referendum Council #noconsent to Recognition http://www.sovereignunion.mobi/content/perfecting-trickery-referendum-council“On his return from Uluru, Ghillar, Michael Anderson, Convenor of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the founding four of the Aboriginal Embassy and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic, details the rigged processes of the Referendum Council’s National Convention and the subsequent media:
““I was absolutely shocked and horrified at the disjointed discussion that occurred on ABC TV Q&A last night ( 29 May 2017) from Parliament House, Canberra.
“In my opinion the conclusions that occurred at the Referendum Council’s National convention at Uluru were totally betrayed by the Q&A panel.
“Having been permitted to sit as an observer in the main National Convention of the Referendum Council at Yulara near Uluru, I was privy to observe the proceedings and I sat through the ‘Synthesis’ of the Regional Dialogues and what they called the breakout workshops as well, where the key topics were ‘The Voice’, ‘Treaty’, ‘Strategy’.
“In respect of the Synthesis (summary) of the Dialogues it was very clear that nationally the specially selected people by the Land Councils (invitation-only delegates) independently concluded that is must be made clear that First Nations sovereignty was never ceded.
“The next key point was the fact the people, from around this island continent, who attended these Regional Dialogues, were emphatic that they did not want a minimalist approach to constitutional reform and they did not want it to be symbolic. They wanted something substantive that would effect real and positive change. It was very clear that they did not just want to remove Section 51(26) the Race Power, because they did not want anything in the constitution that could be used in a manner that
would be detrimental to First Nations Peoples exercising their rights and their right to be self-determining.
“More importantly, the presentation in the Synthesis/Summary does suggest that an overwhelming majority of people, who attended these Regional Dialogues, were determined that, because sovereignty was never ceded, that Treaties should be made with Sovereign First Nations throughout the continent and they determined that our ancient tapestry of languages and cultures cannot be destroyed and lost forever to our future generations. …
“Despite all the rigging and wrongdoings, the consensus that was finalised was:
1) Sovereignty was never ceded;
2) Rejection of being ‘recognised’ in the constitution;
3) No support a minimalist approach to constitutional reform;
4) Agreement that a Treaty/Makaratta Commission be established to develop a national framework going forward
that would permit each Sovereign Nation State to negotiate their own respective Treaty;
5) Removal of section 51 (26) from the constitution;
6) Establishment of Truth and Justice Commission;
7) Resolved also that the constitution of Australia should have a Bill of Rights; and
8) Establishment of an elected Voice to the parliament and to ensure that this Voice has constitutional backing. …
Adani will profit from APPROVAL for coal mine expansion, even if the project does not go ahead
Malcolm Turnbull is considering spending almost $1 billion of his $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund on one project: a loan to a company controlled by the Adani family to enable it to build a 400 kilometre railway to get the coal to a deep water port near the Great Barrier Reef. By definition, such a loan wouldn’t be needed if the railway was commercially viable, which raises a disturbing question: if the railway isn’t viable, what about the mines it would rely on for business?
“One of the most profitable activities in Australia is the magical act of getting things rezoned, and that’s just as true for the mining industry.”
If Adani gets environmental approvals and a licence to mine, the value of its asset will have soared whether or not it actually mines. It could even onsell the asset without mining.
Even better, if it did onsell the project, it could maintain ownership of the railway, without which the next owners couldn’t get the coal to port.
Patriarch Gautam Adani has put ownership of the railway (the one that would be financed by the Commonwealth) into a separate private company owned by the family in the Cayman Islands. Should the publicly listed company that owns the mine go bust and have to sell, the mine’s new owners would still have to keep paying him.
Mine games. Why Adani is banking on the unbankable http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/mine-games-why-adani-is-banking-on-the-unbankable-20170531-gwgzvb.html Peter Martin 2 June 17,
You would think Adani would have gone away by now.
The giant Indian conglomerate can’t get a loan for its proposed $22 billion Queensland coal mine from an Australian bank, it can’t seem to get one from an Indian bank, the mine would be so big it would depress the world coal price, and the Indian government plans to phase out coal imports altogether.
In documents released to Fairfax Media under freedom of information laws, the Queensland Treasury as good as described the project as “unbankable”.
What is being proposed is breathtaking: a series of coal mines 60 kilometres long. If scrunched together they would be 40 kilometres long and 10 kilometres wide – an area bigger than Paris, much bigger than Sydney Harbour.
It would be the biggest coal mine in Australia and the biggest export coal mine in the world. It and the neighbours in the Galilee Basin that would open up when the railway went through would double our export capacity. It’s more than important enough for the Australian government to take a serious interest in. Continue reading
Ross Garnaut – green energy will be win-win for South Australia
Ross Garnaut: SA has little choice over green energy and can be a low carbon superpower http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/ross-garnaut-sa-has-little-choice-over-green-energy-and-can-be-a-low-carbon-superpower/news-story/1de5289d11018f29eefa271b913b118f Ross Garnaut, The Advertiser June 1, 2017 OF the many challenges facing South Australia, it’s hard not to look past how the state plans to deal with a more secure electricity supply.
Queensland Land Court recommends scrapping Acland coal mine expansion
Acland coal mine: Queensland Land Court recommends scrapping expansion, ABC News, By Andrew Kos, 31 May 17, Landholders and farmers in the Darling Downs are claiming a big win following a Land Court decision recommending the $900 million Stage 3 expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine be scrapped.
More than 60 property owners have been fighting the New Hope Group’s proposed project since the State Government indicated support for it in 2012.
The expansion, which would see the mine produce coal for a further decade, was granted Federal Government approval earlier this year.
Opponents took the matter to the Land Court last year arguing the mine expansion would damage groundwater levels, air quality and prime agricultural land.
The case became the longest in Land Court history, with more than 100 days of hearings and 2,000 exhibits.
In a judgment today, the court recommended the Mining Leases and Environmental Authority amendment for Stage 3 not be granted for the proposed expansion…..
Government could still permit project
In a statement to the ASX, the New Hope Group said it remained committed to delivering the project and would actively progress it through the final stages of approval…… The State Government is the final decision maker for the project and will need to decide whether to follow the court’s recommendations or approve it regardless.
A spokeswoman said the Government was examining the court’s judgment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-31/acland-mine-expansion-should-be-scrapped,-court-rules/8576886
Adani to make $billions out of rail line, NOT coal mine – Pauline Hanson is right
Pauline Hanson has told the Turnbull government to build the billion-dollar Galilee Basin coal line itself, announcing she would oppose a “foreign multi-national” from owning the crucial infrastructure.The rail corridor, which would run from the central Queensland coal basin to the Abbot Point port on the state’s coast, has been deemed a key feature of Indian mining company Adani moving forward with its project.
But the One Nation leader, who has maintained support for the mining project itself, said she had asked Resources Minister Matt Canavan to build the line “as a piece of national infrastructure”.
“This approved rail corridor will eventually connect to the national line, so it should be owned by the Australian people, not a foreign multi-national,” she said in a statement.
“This railway could make the Australian people hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Adani are here to build a coal mine, not a gold mine.
“This is a railroad that should belong to the people. We should build it, own it, control it and make sure no future government can give it away.”
The rail corridor is seen as a crucial piece of infrastructure in opening the Galilee Basin up to mining, with both GVK Hancock and Clive Palmer’s Waratah Coal having earmarked projects in the region……http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pauline-hanson-says-no-to-adani-train-line-20170601-gwia3r.html
Solar power plant for Northern Territory Aboriginal community -cuts reliance on diesel
NT aboriginal community to get 1MW solar plant, cut reliance on diesel, REneweconomy, By Sophie Vorrath on 1 June 2017 One Step Off The Grid
A remote Aboriginal community south of Darwin in the Northern Territory will soon be powered mostly by the sun, thanks to a hybrid solar and diesel generation plant being built as part of the Territory government’s SETuP program.
The Daly River project will see the construction of a 1MW solar facility, that is expected to provide 100 per cent of the local Nauiyu community’s energy needs during the day, relegating the diesel generators for use only at night and as back-up…….
…to read the full story on One Step Off The Grid, click here
This article was originally published on RenewEconomy’s sister site, One Step Off The Grid, which focuses on customer experience with distributed generation. http://reneweconomy.com.au/nt-aboriginal-community-get-1mw-solar-plant-cut-reliance-diesel-59838/
Fossil fuel generators manipulating Australia’s energy prices
Regulators’ wake up call: Fossil fuel majors are gaming markets, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 1 June 2017 Australian regulators are finally waking up to the grim consequences of Australia’s archaic energy market design, and the fallout from the reckless and self-serving opposition to carbon pricing and renewable energy targets by the industry incumbents.
The Australian Energy Regulator’s latest State of the Energy Market report paints a frightening picture of how prices are controlled, manipulated and thrust into orbit by the cynical bidding practices of the major fossil fuel generators.
Consumers – both households and business – are paying the price, and they are faced with a double whammy, because as the Queensland Competition Regulator notes in its latest pricing report, it is the lack of renewable energy in the state which is allowing the coal and gas generators to set high prices.
This last bit of information is highly ironic, because the QCA, under the then leadership of Malcolm Roberts (not the Senator, but the current head of the main oil and gas lobby APPEA) was among those who used to rail against solar feed in tariffs and the like.
The then Queensland energy minister Mark McArdle argued that renewable energy would cause energy prices to surge. In fact, as anyone who was paying attention would have predicted, the opposite has turned out to be true……..
The market power of major fossil fuel generators and their bidding practices have been highlighted in the AER’s State of the Energy Market report released this week, and is yet more confirmation about the poor design of market rules which leaves the regulator powerless to act.
The report acknowledges that the problem stems largely from the decision to allow generators and retailers to form so-called “gentailers”.
This has helped those big companies protect their own revenues through hedging, but also create an oligopoly that the AER says has posed a “potential barrier to entry” to new generators and retailers.
AGL Energy, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia, it notes, supply 70 per cent of retail electricity customers in the NEM and have expanded their market share in generation capacity from 15 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2017. In some states, control of generation lies in the hands of just two or three major players.
This market dominance has reached such levels that it is the bidding practices of the generators – rather than the ratio of renewables or even soaring gas prices – that is having the major impact on prices that consumers pay……. http://reneweconomy.com.au/regulators-wake-up-call-fossil-fuel-majors-are-gaming-markets-18995/
THE PROPOSED FEDERAL NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY IS IN FACT AN INTERNATIONAL DUMP
Note – from MAPW – While cyclotron production of technetium is commercially licensed in Canada and undergoing clinical trials, it is still a while (?2years???) before it is a viable option for this particular isotope . And there are issues with the potentially limited and costly supply of the precursor materials. IN addition the heavily subsidised Australian isotopes will probably undercut the market (Similar to subsidising coal against the early phases of renewables-sigh).
But we can urge the government to partner in cyclotron research. And stop ramping up massively subsidised exports of Molybdenum which is used to make technetium isotopes.
Technetium 99 is the principal radioactive diagnostic isotope used in Australian medical procedures (80% IN 2015-16). This is currently supplied by ANSTO through production of Molybdenum 99 at the Lucas heights OPAL reactor – but Te-99 can also be produced by particle accelerators or cyclotrons which ANSTO is also capable of conducting – in fact it does so for other radioactive isotopes such as Fluorine 18, Carbon 15 & Oxygen 11.
Of the Mo 99 produced by the ANSTO OPAL reactor, currently only 28% is used in Australia whilst 72% is exported internationally. With the expansion of the Mo 99 production by a factor of at least 400% by the end of 2018 & Australia’s demand remaining static thru more efficient use of Te 99.
This means that whilst the nuclear waste will quadruple, the percentage of waste resulting from Australian consumption will drop to about 8%.
Proponents of the dump proclaim loudly that the Wallerberdina/Kimba dumps are needed to store Australian medical waste.
WHAT THEY FAIL TO MENTION IS THAT 90% WILL BE FROM INTERNATIONAL WASTE –
NOR DO THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAME MEDICAL BENEFIT CAN BE ACHIEVED
WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT ALL.
ANSTO barely breaks even with it’s exports, & they are ramping up production whilst global demand is static & new overseas production facilities are about to come on-line.
Pro nuclear shills bring nonsense promises about Generation IV nuclear reactors to Australia
There isn’t the slightest chance that SMRs will fulfil the ambition of making nuclear power “radically 
cheaper” unless and until a manufacturing supply chain is mass producing SMRs for a mass market.
As things stand, no country, company or utility has any intention of betting billions on building an SMR supply chain. In the absence of a mass supply chain, SMRs will be expensive curiosities.
Ben Heard thinks Australia should take the lead building his preferred version of Generation IV fast neutron reactors.
So Australia ‒ a country with virtually no relevant expertise and even less experience ‒ should take the lead developing Generation IV reactors despite the fact that global nuclear industry giants face crippling debts and possible bankruptcy due to cost overruns building a handful of conventional reactors?
That proposition is beyond stupid and it was even rejected by the (stridently pro-nuclear) SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission last year.
New nuclear push digs deep into vault of alternative facts, Jim Green, 31 May 2017, RenewEconomy http://reneweconomy.com.au/new-nuclear-push-digs-deep-vault-alternative-facts-90295/
Australia’s nuclear energy debate reaches Peak Idiocy this week with the visit of Jessica Lovering from the U.S. Breakthrough Institute. Lovering has and will be speaking at public events alongside Australian university student Ben Heard.
Both the Breakthrough Institute and Heard’s ‘Bright New World’ present 
themselves as progressive environment groups but they are single-issue, pro-nuclear lobby groups with little interest in broader environmental issues. Australia’s environment groups ‒ i.e. real environment groups ‒ are united in our opposition to nuclear power.
Real environment groups celebrate the spectacular growth of renewables and the spectacular cost reductions whereas pro-nuclear lobby groups, including Lovering’s Breakthrough Institute and Heard’s Bright New World, are on a never-ending campaign against renewables. Global renewable energy capacity has doubled over the past decade and current renewable capacity of 2,006 gigawatts (GW) is 5.1 times greater than nuclear power capacity of 392 GW (including idle reactors in Japan). Actual electricity generation from renewables (23.5% of global generation) is more than double that from nuclear power (10.7%) and the gap is widening every day.
Lovering’s opinion piece in The Australian on Monday fails to note that her speaking trip is sponsored by the Minerals Council of Australia. Likewise, Heard has also been paid as a uranium industry consultant.
Lovering brings a suitcase full of alternative facts to Australia. The most egregious is that the nuclear industry is in the middle of some sort of renaissance. Even her own institute contradicts this, Continue reading
Australia’s nuclear lobby keen to have new submarines transformed to NUCLEAR submarines
Did you wonder why the Australian government chose to buy the much more expensive French submarines, rather than the cheaper and probably more suitable German ones?
Well, what’s $50 billion from the public purse matter, if your government, kow-towing as always, to ANSTO and the nuclear lobby, can arrange to buy submarines that are designed as nuclear submarines, but have them “not nuclear” at the start, and then later transforfm them back to nuclear.
Not too late to fit nuclear power into Australian submarines, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/not-too-late-to-fit-nuclear-power-into-australian-submarines/news-story/00cb486799368120ae592e737701beb9 THE AUSTRALIAN, Malcolm Davis, 15 May 17, Is it time to begin a discussion on nuclear-powered submarines (known as SSNs) for the Royal Australian Navy? 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 