Welcome To The Nuclear State – wake-up song from Mike Roberts
The South Australian government is proposing to build a nuclear waste dump on traditional indigenous land in the stunningly beautiful Flinders Ranges. If plans come to fruition we may well be seeing high-level radioactive waste from around the world shipped into our pristine, clean green state hoping that a catastrophe from any of the inherent risks never eventuates. Mike Roberts’ song is a wake-up call about our scenario that will have impact both nationally and internationally.
Welcome to the Nuclear State – words and music Mike Roberts 2016
Players:
Mike Roberts – lead vocal, backing vocals, acoustic guitar
Quentin Eyers – slide guitar, bass guitar, drums, piano
Production – Quentin Eyers, Q the Music, Norwood, South Australia
Video Production – Jordan Roberts, FSR Media House
Photographs – Mike Roberts, Dianne Bills
http://www.mikerobertsmusic.com.au
info@mikerobertsmusic.com.au
Your Say – comments on the diseconomics of the nuclear waste dump plan
Paul Laris 31 Aug 2016 I am very concerned that SA may be placed at environmental and/or financial risk if the nuclear waste storage project goes ahead. The business case rests on the assumption of continuing demand for storage over several decades. This cannot be assured. If, over that period there is another nuclear power station catastrophe, or the cost of other renewable sources of baseline power falls significantly, then demand for storage, and income, will shrivel. These are both highly plausible scenarios. I note that Germany is committed to closing all nuclear power stations by 2022.
The business case involves temporary surface storage until there is a sufficient accumulation of income to build the very costly underground infrastructure required for safe millenial storage. If demand and income faulters during the next 30 years or so, there is a major risk that we will be left with a large amount of inadequately surface-stored waste – a stranded liability. To leave it that way will be environmentally iresponsible. To store it safely will be financially crippling.
Due dilligence demands we do not proceed to burden our children and suceeding generations with such high levels of risk.
Claire Catt 08 Aug 2016 There is a simple principal question, one needs to ask how a venture relaying on a once off payment of an uncertain amount could be viable when costs are unknown but certainly lasting for thousands of years. How could that ever add up.
I would speculate the money won’t last to actually pay for any underground storage many years hence.
There is certainly no precedent of any Government ever being able to manage a large amount of money responsibly so far into the future. And most certainly not this Government.
So even to the average person, the economics look shonky. The risks however are crystal clear! Several above ground ‘temporary’ storage sites all over our state for a very very long time to be guarded and somehow kept from all forms of life for thousands of years.
Really, it’s unbelievable our own Government is even thinking about it. Money, even if it was there, doesn’t come into it. The nuclear industry needs to get out of this country and stop spreading their horrendous problems all over this world.
Claire Catt 14 Aug 2016 It is utterly unpredictable what the longterm maintenance and security costs of such a large and dangerous dump would be. All figures in the Royal Commission’ Report are speculative and untested. The optimistic promises of riches reek of bias and manipulation.
There is far more opportunity in South Australia in a clean and green future with a healthy, involved and participating population. We don’t want a dirty secretive industry here which will endanger the longterm well being of us all.
Mary-Ann Lovejoy 29 Aug 2016 The economics of this proposal IMO seem highly speculative. I understand they have not even been costed by someone reputable and independent of ANY bias (pro or con.)
I understand not even Treasury have been permitted to examine the figures – perhaps Belinda could answer that question definitively? Or tell us if that will happen, before we go any further in the debate of economics?
Nick Xenophon responded to my query on his nuclear position – he replied he did not support this proposal as the “alleged” benefits were outweighed by the potential risk. Given it’s such an important topic for his/our state, I’m sure he will have examined the figures well, prior to his statement of position.
What runs often through my mind, in discussion of nuclear, is the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster off the USA coast, where the technology that was stated to be beyond reproach caused a huge disaster. The costs, (environmental, economic and social) were devastating, and the company responsible did its best to avoid liability for the cleanup. That frightens me, as not only would our state be devastated by such an event (nuclear waste accident, terrorist attack, human error, equipment failure, whatever the cause) , but how could it be cleaned up? Is it even possible to do so? And what of the resultant cost? Surely it would bankrupt our state?
Like Xenophon, I think the benefits are speculative, and the potential risks too great.
I demand a vote of all citizens before this proceeds any further, to test community consent. If there’s not initial consent, how on earth can there be “on-going consent”? important.http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Your Say: Nuclear waste deal – stealthy plan to get nuclear submarines?
Steve Charles 13 Sep 2016 I suggest the real reason behind turning SA into a high level nuclear waste dump is that the SA Government knows that the submarines to be built in Adelaide are already a nuclear design and will need to be converted to diesel, but this is difficult and costly. Perhaps they are wanting to get nuclear submarines by stealth, but will need somewhere to dump the spent fuel. We cannot trust this government. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946 important.
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Your Say: brand South Australia to be irrevocably smirched by nuclear waste dump
adrian hill 04 Sep 2016 Safety isnt what we should be worrying about
Our brand is more at risk. We want to be known for our great food and wine. While there is not risk at all the waste will reach anywhere near our food chain, we know the how the media can paint a city. I’m concerned that SA will be rebranded as the waste dump state which could affect our tourism. It wouldnt bother me if we could redraw the boarders so the area is not our state. Could it be an independant state like canberra? Or do we name a town where the dumping will occur and push the name of that town rather than associate with SA….google ‘snowtown important.
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Moratorium on fracking now in place in Northern Territory
Fracking moratorium takes effect in NT, Chief Minister Michael Gunner says, By Avani Dias A moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, begins today, with Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner announcing the move at an oil and gas summit in Darwin.
“I announce that the Government will as of today implement this election commitment to introduce a moratorium of hydraulic fracturing of the Territory’s unconventional gas resources,” Mr Gunner told the South East Asia Australia Offshore and Onshore Conference…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/nt-government-introduces-fracking-moratorium/7843502
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says new cut to Clean Energy Fund , in exchange for saving Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena)
Coalition says deal with Labor to save Arena funding will lead to new clean energy cut
Mathias Cormann tells Sky News that the capital available to Clean Energy Innovation Fund will be reduced, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 13 Sept 16, The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has said the Coalition’s deal with Labor to save some funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) will be balanced by a new cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund – but Labor has denied that was the agreement.
Speaking on Sky News, Cormann said: “Labor has asked for us to restore $800m of that for grants funding so we will do that but the capital available to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund will be reduced accordingly.”
It is understood that would in effect be cutting the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) by $800m, because the innovation fund is part of the CEFC……..
The Greens’ climate and energy spokesman, Adam Bandt, called on Labor and theCoalition to clarify what the finance minister meant.
“It seems the finance minister thinks the government still gets to rip over a billion dollars from clean energy and that Labor has been outplayed,” Bandt said. “Far from saving clean energy, Labor just did a dirty deal with the Liberals to gut renewables.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/13/coalition-says-deal-with-labor-to-save-arena-funding-will-lead-to-new-clean-energy-cut
Australia loses valuable weather forecasting as Govt closes Macquarie Island research station
Macquarie Island research closure will lead to deterioration in weather forecasting, scientist says, ABC News, By Elise Fantin , 15 Sep 16 The closure of the Macquarie Island research station will put weather forecasting at risk, a climate scientist has warned.
Key points:
- Rainfall, temperature, wind and cloud measurements are taken daily on the island
- Weather balloons are launched daily for atmospheric measurements
- Loss of data will lead to deterioration of forecasting, scientist says
The Australian Antarctic Division announced on Tuesday to close the station in March next year and restrict research to field huts during the summer period only.
Atmospheric scientist Professor David Karoly — who sits on the Federal Government’s Climate Change Authority — said the station’s closure would have long-term consequences for data collection……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/macquarie-island-weather-research-at-risk/7845428
Debunking five claims by climate science denier politician Malcolm Roberts
his views could now have relevance and importance – not because they are potentially true, but because they could influence the workings of parliament.
Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier
In his first speech to Parliament on Tuesday, Roberts made many false claims about climate change. He said that climate change was a “scam” and implied that it was some sort of conspiracy between all the major international research agencies. “ … there is no data proving human use of hydro-carbon fuels affects climate,” he said.
Most news outlets had stopped covering the views of climate science deniers in regular reporting. There is a clear scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human carbon emissions have caused it, so reporting the views of a few non-experts who push fanciful theories with no credible evidence is seen as “false balance”.
But journalists are in a different position when someone in an important office holds such views………
to avoid repeatedly having to debunk Roberts’ views, we have produced a handy reference list of his main arguments, as outlined on the ABC’s Q&A program on 15 August. This list may be updated if he introduces new elements to back his claims.: Continue reading
With careful planning, Kangaroo Island could be independent with renewable energy
A balanced local electricity supply solution and a transition to 100% renewable power could deliver a range of economic development and other benefits to the local community.
Kangaroo Island’s choice: a new cable to the mainland, or renewable power, The Conversation, Chris Dunstan September 16, 2016 South Australia’s iconic Kangaroo Island, the site of Australia’s first free settled colony, could pioneer a new age of renewable energy, according to our new research.
The first hardy settlers in 1836 had to decide whether to go it alone with a settlement on the island or revert to the mainland. Today, the 4,400 or so people who call the island home face a similarly stark choice: energy independence, or continued reliance on the mainland.
On one hand, the ageing existing cable could simply be replaced, at a cost of between A$22 million and A$50 million. This is the “preferred network option” proposed by the local electricity distribution network, SA Power Networks (SAPN).
On the other hand, SAPN is also currently considering an alternative mix of local wind, solar and biomass generation, complemented by diesel generation, battery storage and demand management. Continue reading
Your Say: Immoral and illegal for Jay Weatherill to spend taxpayer money to promote nuclear waste dump
Peter Lazic 12 Sep 2016 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral
Ed note : Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Australian company exporting lithium
Why mine lithium?
Lithium is essential for wind turbines, as well as for so many 21st Century 
technologies. However, it is another potentially toxic extractive industry. There’s so much of it dumped in discarded devices. Design should be the answer, so that lithium can be recycled.
MinRes beats Galaxy in lithium export race Jarrod Lucas – The West Australian on September 16, 2016 The first shipment of spodumene concentrate from the Mt Marion mine, 40km south-west of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, is set to depart Fremantle next month bound for lithium processing plants in China.
The product, the equivalent of about 6 per cent lithium, will be delivered to Mt Marion co-owners Ganfeng Lithium (43.1 per cent), which builds batteries out of Jiangxi province and recently branched out into manufacturing electric cars.
Mt Marion, jointly owned by Chris Ellison’s Mineral Resources (43.1 per cent), and Neometals (13.8 per cent), will beat Galaxy Resources to market after its first shipment via Esperance from the revamped Mt Cattlin mine near Ravensthorpe was delayed until December.
It comes as Mt Marion’s neighbours Maximus Resources yesterday trumpeted a “new lithium discovery” on the doorstep of the mine……..https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32629967/lithium-set-for-export/#page1
Nearly half of all Australians would consider switching banks, due to climate change concern
Switching banks: nearly half of all Australians would consider move over climate change
Poll findings released as prominent Australians call on big four to withdraw backing for fossil fuel industry, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 14 Sept 16, About half of all Australians would be likely to switch banks if they found out their bank was lending money to projects that contribute to climate change, according to polling commissioned by the financial activist group Market Forces.
The findings came as more than 100 prominent Australian individuals and organisations signed a letter demanding that the big four banks stop supporting projects that expand the fossil fuel industry. Among the signatories are JM Coetzee, Charlotte Wood, James Bradley, Missy Higgins, Peter Singer and Jack Mundey, as well as unions, religious orders and conservation groups.
Asked how important it was that their bank invest in companies and projects that don’t harm the environment and contribute to climate change, 74% of the poll’s respondents who were with the big four banks said it was at least “somewhat important”, according to the Essential Research poll of 1,017 people.
Forty-eight per cent of respondents said they would be more likely to switch banks if they learned their bank was lending to projects that harmed the environment or contributed to climate change.
When the researchers drilled down into specific types of projects, respondents appeared very concerned. Forty-seven per cent said they were likely to switch banks if they found out their bank was lending to coal and gas export projects in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. And 48% said they were likely to switch if they found out theirs was lending to coal seam gas projects near agricultural communities.
Respondents also overwhelmingly supported the big four banks’ decisions to support the goal to limit warming to “well below” 2C. But 65% of people agreed that given their support of that goal, the banks should no longer lend to projects that expand the fossil fuel industry.
In August Market Forces conducted research that found the big four banks had lent $5.6bn to fossil fuel projects and companies since they expressed support for the target.
In the open letter, released at the same time as the poll findings, the signatoreis outline a number of actions that the banks must commit to in light of their support for the Paris agreement goal……..https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/15/switching-banks-nearly-half-of-all-australians-would-consider-move-over-climate-change
Is Australina government secretly planning nuclear submarines?
Dick Smith questions submarine project, says plans are ‘ludicrous’ and ‘we’re being conned’ 891 ABC Adelaide, 14 Sept 16
French company DCNS won the $50 billion contract to build Australia’s next fleet of 12 submarines in Adelaide, which will replace the current Collins Class fleet. The company won the contract to build a modified version of its nuclear submarine, called the Shortfin Barracuda.
The Australian Government stipulated that the winning contract would need to use conventional power, ruling out larger, nuclear-powered submarines. The lead up to the submarine contract has involved election promises, business and political campaigns and lots of speculation.
Mr Smith said the re-designed version of the submarine would have to be converted to a diesel engine.
But he told 891 ABC Adelaide that was a ludicrous plan and he believed it would never happen.
“So the plan is for us to buy a nuclear submarine design and then convert it to a piston submarine,” he said. “Now no-one has ever done that in the world and in fact when I talk to submarine experts they say it is so ridiculous, so we’re being conned.”
Mr Smith said if the Government’s real agenda was to use nuclear technology, it should be up front about it……….
More details on subs project needed: Xenophon South Australia Senator Nick Xenophon said more detail about the submarines project was needed…..Senator Xenophon said he was concerned about the lack of certainty surrounding the project. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946
South Australian govrenment sucked in by the Small Modular Nuclear Reactor lobby?
The SA Government’s “Energy Market Transition Plan”, obtained by Freedom of Information request, has revealed that prospects for small modular nuclear reactor deployment in South Australia have been explored.
SA government probes nuclear option as Premier Jay Weatherill promises cheaper power https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/32558838/sa-government-probes-nuclear-option-as-premier-jay-weatherill-promises-cheaper-power/#page2
7News Adelaide September 7th, 7 News can reveal a top level report clearly indicates small scale nuclear reactors have been on the short term radar. Mike Smithson reports
An expert witness to the Nuclear Citizens Jury – sceptical of the “economic bonanza”
The price is a guess; there is no market price for accepting dumped waste at the present time.
The cost of shipping the waste to South Australia seems also to be a notional allowance in Appendix J ($0.20m/tonne heavy metal). Where this comes from is not obvious.
far from being a financial bonanza, as proposed by the Royal Commission, the project could make minimal returns, and be a real distraction from alternative paths to the economic future of the state
The SA economy, the nuclear waste dump and democracy Richard Blandy INDaily, 12 Sept 16 ANALYSIS As TV messages encourage South Australians to become informed about a proposed nuclear waste dump, Richard Blandy argues the project could prove a distraction from exploring alternative solutions to the state’s economic challenges.
Several times in recent days I have seen a brief message on our TV in which a South Australian mother advises her small daughter that everyone must become informed about the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in the state. Her daughter looks suitably mystified.
No doubt this is part of the exercise in citizens’ democracy that is currently underway to determine whether there is a “social licence” to proceed with such a dump. Other elements in this process include two meetings of citizens’ juries (one of which has already been held), as well as citizens’ information meetings.
The TV message could have come from the satirical 1970 movie The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, in which conman Rimmer (Peter Cook) eventually becomes British Prime Minister. …….
my experience of the first citizens’ jury, which I attended as an expert witness on July 9, was very positive. I was invited principally as a result of my InDaily articles opposing the dump.
There was one other expert economics witness present questioning the economics of the dump: Rod Campbell, research director of the Australia Institute in Canberra.
Several of the expert witnesses present who supported the economics of the dump had been involved in undertaking the economic/financial analysis for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The citizens’ jury operated as a free-flowing discussion rather than with set pieces presented by the witnesses followed by questions from the jurors. The issues are difficult and technical, but the jurors were great. They made me think that if I am ever in deep trouble with the law, I will always opt for trial by jury.
The 54 South Australian citizens on the jury were sensible, common-sense people who asked pertinent questions. They quite properly insisted that the business case for the dump should be made watertight – or the dump abandoned. Continue reading
1 This month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Submissions to the federal government’s new draft framework close on the 13th November 2026.
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
