South Australia’s nuclear waste dump money mirage
Real juries hear both the Prosecution and Defence cases in open court. What I fear is that my fellow citizens selected for citizen’s jury duty will get to read and hear only what the State Government wants them to read and hear, so that they will give Premier Weatherill the “social licence” he wants in order to proceed with the dump.
South Australians do not need to mortgage their descendants’ future by building a high level nuclear dump in order to make ends meet. The alleged riches that the dump has been claimed to bring are a mirage, but the long-term risks are not.
How a high-level nuclear waste dump could lose money http://indaily.com.au/business/analysis/2016/06/07/how-a-high-level-nuclear-waste-dump-could-lose-money/ June 7 2016 The economic case for a high level nuclear waste facility in South Australia is far from convincing, writes Richard Blandy.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission delivered its report early in May. I submitted my InDaily article on the Royal Commission’s tentative findings to the inquiry for its consideration. I received no acknowledgement, but I know that the article was discussed within the royal commission’s processes. It does not appear to have had any substantive effect on the report.
Having read the relevant sections of the report, I continue to believe that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive used fuel from overseas nuclear reactors (sp-called “high level waste”) which, in the royal commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
The only reason why most South Australians would give a high level nuclear waste dump even a second’s thought is because it is being sold to them as a financial bonanza – a no-risk economic lifeline to a state down on its luck. Something for nothing.
In the summary of its report, the royal commission says that a high level waste dump “could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the project (or $51 billion discounted at 4 per cent)”. Note that the report says “could”, not “would”.
But, in Appendix J, the report says that “applying a commercial pre-tax discount rate of 10 per cent the net present value of profits to the State would amount to $11.5 billion”. This is a big reduction from the headline number in the summary of $100 billion. Continue reading
Rushing the South Australian nuclear waste discussion will be a failure
Royal commission engagement expert says nuclear opportunities will disappear if decision is rushed http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/royal-commission-engagement-expert-says-nuclear-opportunities-will-disappear-if-decision-is-rushed/news-story/f1bc0cf254e6b9d934669704a1b7196c June 8, 2016 Luke Griffiths The Advertiser THE person responsible for the Nuclear Royal Commission’s regional engagement says that if community consultation is rushed to meet political deadlines, the whole process will fall over.
Jon Bok, a former stakeholder engagement adviser to Santos, visited more than 50 SA communities over the course of 12 months. He told attendees at an Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy uranium conference in Adelaide yesterday that if the State Government is to develop a high-level nuclear waste repository, the “fundamental threshold issue of safety has to be addressed”.
“For many people, it’s going to take a long time to get from where they are now to have a sufficient level of trust and confidence in government and industry that this can actually be done safely and taken forward,” he said.
Resistance remained strong in many areas, which Mr Bok said can be attributed in part to legacy issues that include the British government’s nuclear tests in Maralinga and issues at Radium Hill uranium mine in the state’s far east.
Royal Commission head Kevin Scarce delivered his final report to Premier Jay Weatherill in early May. His key finding was that a high-level waste storage facility would generate economic benefits in excess of $250 billion and that its development should be pursued by the State Government.
Mr Weatherill has since established a consultation and response agency, overseen by an advisory board, and a citizens’ jury to facilitate further community feedback.
He told Parliament on May 17 that, guided by the outcomes of this engagement, he will provide the Government’s response to the Commission’s report by the end of the year.
While unwilling to criticise the Government, Mr Bok said a timeline must not be set on the education of “dubious and curious” residents.
“There’s simply not going to be enough information in the public domain to make a yes or no decision in the next 12-18 months,” he said.
“The Government wants to be in a position to know where to take this by the end of the year, which is a very short time frame. But all of the international evidence suggests that rushing this process will lead to failure — it cannot be rushed. Continue reading
Warning on threat posed by nuclear waste plan to South Australia’s clean agriculture image
Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston warns SA nuke plan mustn’t come at expense of clean, green image, The Advertiser, June 7, 2016 FEDERAL Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston has warned concerns about the country’s international reputation for exporting clean and green food must be addressed before proposals for nuclear waste storage in the state could be approved.
Senator Ruston today appeared for the Liberals at an Adelaide City Council debate of candidates for the federal seat of Adelaide, after her party’s David Colovic declined to appear……..
Senator Ruston said the Coalition was open to considering the prospect of nuclear waste in SA, but stressed it should not come at the cost of the state’s reputation for premium produce. “I am the assistant minister for agriculture and water resources. I believe that SA, but also the whole of Australia, has a competitive advantage in the international marketplace because we’re clean, we’re green and we’re safe,” she told the audience…….
Nick Xenophon Team candidate Joe Hill said the state should vote before approval was given.
“Certainly glad that we’re having a discussion around this and remain open-minded.
“We do support a referendum because of the magnitude and significance of this,” he said.
Speaking on FIVEaa radio this morning, Labor Leader Bill Shorten said: “Consultations around that have got a long way to go, so I’m going to concentrate on winning the election and prioritising jobs rather than get into that debate at this point.”……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/agriculture-and-water-resources-assistant-minister-anne-ruston-warns-sa-nuke-plan-mustnt-come-at-expense-of-clean-green-image/news-story/baf27ae82b2098a613609d8131fe3e4f?sv=501bdd53a265db7876b5905830257d73
First a propaganda push for nuclear waste importing, then one for nuclear submarines
Federal election 2016: nuclear-powered subs needs discussion, PETER JENNINGS, THE AUSTRALIAN, JUNE 7 “……..Readers will appreciate the irony of Australia selecting the French-designed Shortfin Barracuda — a nuclear submarine that will be adapted to conventional propulsion……….
[2016 white paper] –
“During the long life of the new submarines, the rapid rate of technological change and ongoing evolution of Australia’s strategic circumstances will continue. As part of the rolling acquisition program, a review based on strategic circumstances at the time, and developments in submarine technology, will be conducted in the late 2020s to consider whether the configuration of the submarines remains suitable or whether consideration of other specifications should commence.”
This could be hinting that nuclear propulsion may be considered a decade or more from now. However, no Australian government in the 2030s or later will be in a position to adopt nuclear propulsion unless earlier decisions have been taken to prepare the ground for such a major development…….
After the 2016 election, the government should start to scope out what steps might sensibly be taken to create a realistic option for nuclear propulsion at the end of the 2020s. A key part of this strategy should be to have an open discussion with the Australian people explaining the basis for the submarine design decision. Government should consider the following steps:
1. Commission an expert panel to evaluate the necessary steps to position for a nuclear propulsion option. The panel should produce a public discussion paper setting out the challenges, risks, opportunities, financial cost and industry requirements necessary to support this technology. Continue reading
Totally Renewable Yackandandah leading Victorian town to 100% renewable energy
A Yack attack on climate in Yackandandah, TUCKED away in a picturesque nook of Victoria’s North East is a small town doing big things.June 7, 2016
Yackandandah — home to between 700 and 2200 people, depending on where you draw the town border — is one of dozens of communities across the country leading the way on renewable energy.
Its goal is ambitious: to be 100 per cent reliant on renewable energy sources by 2022.
At the helm is Matthew Charles-Jones, an environmental education teacher and former university lecturer who runs an education and accommodation facility at Falls Creek.
He’s a co-chair of Totally Renewable Yackandandah, or TRY as it is more familiarly known, a committee of about half a dozen passionate locals promoting the renewable energy message……
Although Matthew is quick to clarify the 100 per cent target is TRY’s goal and not the official town plan, if the yellow cardboard yaks popping up across the district are any indication, plenty of locals are signing up to the vision.
The Australian PV Institute tracks solar power installations across the country. Its most recent data shows 249 dwellings within the 3749 postcode (taking in Yackandah and Bruarong, a hamlet about 13km south) are producing their own solar energy, about 35 per cent of a combined 700 homes.
This, says Matthew, is up from 24 per cent when TRY entered the scene.
Yackandandah Health, a facility that provides aged care as well as a host of primary health services, was one of the first organisations to take up the mantle.
It has installed 348 solar panels to provide 90kW of power and reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 115 tonnes — in real terms, the equivalent of taking 23 cars permanently off the road.
The system, which produces about a quarter of their electricity consumption, is also expected to save the non-profit, community-owned organisation $1 million over the next 25 years…….
While it is not uncommon for town-folk to be perceived as more progressive than their farming neighbours, around Yackandandah, farmers are also jumping on the bandwagon…….
Firm believers in solar energy’s ability to give a financial return to home and business owners, the TRY committee has established a “perpetual energy fund” to help further ease the cost concern, offering loans for people to install solar systems and then make repayments with the savings off their electricity bill.
It’s an initiative designed to fill the gap left by changes to Australian energy policy that have put solar energy, and renewables in general, on the back burner.
“We need such a massive amount of change in this sector and for me, our traditional institutions aren’t doing enough about it,” Matthew says.
“Around the world countries, communities and business are investing heavily in renewable energy but because there hasn’t been a clear, enduring policy in Australia and in that absence, investment in renewable energy collapsed…….
Yackandandah is not alone.
Matthew estimates there are nearly 80 communities across Victoria leading the way in renewable and community energy.
Closest to home is Newstead, a small town about a 15-minute drive from Castlemaine in central Victoria. Six years ago it announced its goal to be Australia’s first 100 per cent renewable energy town by 2021.
“They’re doing remarkable work,” says Matthew, while noting the town has been helped along by significant financial input from the Victorian Government…….http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/country-living/a-yack-attack-on-climate-in-yackandandah/news-story/92775dad3e4dd28f80e052c40668e766
New South Wales people: put your Labor politicians on the nuclear spot!
SAMPLE EMAIL
It is best to send emails or letters in your own words. However, here’s 
an example anyway.
- Labor will:
- Vigorously and totally oppose the ocean dumping of radioactive waste;
- Prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia;
- Fully meet all Australia’s obligations as a party to the NPT; and
- Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
MPs
Hon Anthony Albanese MP for grayndler A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 6277 4664
Hon Sharon Bird MP for Cunningham Sharon.Bird.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 6277 4244
Hon Chris Bowen MP for McMahon, Chris.Bowen.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 9604 0710
Hon Tony Burke MP for Watson Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 9750 9088
Hon Jason Clare MP for Blaxland – no email (02) 9790 2466
Hon Ms Sharon Claydon MP – no email (02) 4926 1555
Hon Mr Pat Conroy MP Pat.Conroy. MP@aph.gov.au 02) 4954 261
Hon Justine Elliot MP – for Richmond Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au (07) 5523 4371
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP – for Hunter Joel.fitzgibbon.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 4991 1022
Hon Mr Chris Hayes MP – for Fowler Chris.Hayes.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 9726 3988
Hon Ed Husic MP for Chifley – no email (02) 6277 4488
Mr Stephen Jones MP for Throsby no email (02) 4262 6122
Hon Ms Julie Owens MP for Parramatta Julie.Owens.MP@aph.gov.au (02) 6277 4134
Ms Michelle Rowland MP – for Greenway michelle.rowland.mp@aph.gov.au (02) 9671 4780
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron senator.cameron@aph.gov.au (02) 6277 3367
Senator Jenny McAllister jennifer.mcallister@aph.gov.au (02) 9719 8100
Peter Alley for Lyne peter@peteralley.com 0428 327 525
Aoife Champion for HUme – aoife.champion@nswlabor.org.au 0413 794 318
Milton Dick – for Oxley Milton.Dick@australianlabor.com.au (07) 3372 8980
Damian Wood for Cowper (contact not available)
Labor politicians and candidates: question them on nuclear policy!
SAMPLE EMAIL
It is best to send emails or letters in your own words. However, here’s an example anyway.
- Labor will:
- Vigorously and totally oppose the ocean dumping of radioactive waste;
- Prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia;
- Fully meet all Australia’s obligations as a party to the NPT; and
- Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
Hon Anthony Byrne MP – MP for Holt Anthony.Byrne.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9796 7533
Hon Ms Lisa Chesters MP – for Bendigo Lisa.Chesters.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 5443 9055
Hon Michael Danby MP – Melbourne Ports – Michael.Danby.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9534 8126
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC, MP – for Isaacs – mark.dreyfus.mp@aph.gov.au
Hon David Feeney – for Batman david.feeney@australianlabor.com.au
Hon Andrew Giles for Scullin – Andrew.Giles@vic.alp.org.au (03) 9404 1911
Hon Catherine King MP for Ballarat Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au 03) 5338 8123
Hon Jenny Macklin – for Jagajaga no email.(03) 9459 1411Richard Marles- for Coria richard.marles.mp@aph.gov.au 03) 5221 3033
Brendan O’Connor for Gorton Brendan.O’Connor.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 8390 6166
Clare O’Neil – for Hotham Clare.ONeil.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9545 6211
Ms Joanne Ryan- for Lalor – no email (03) 9742 5800
Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP – for Calwell Maria.Vamvakinou.MP@aph.gov.au (03) 9367 5216
Mr Tim Watts MP for Gellibrand http://www.timwatts.net.au/Contact/Contact-Info (03)9687 7661
SENATORS VICTORIA
Senator the Hon Kim Carr senator.carr@aph.gov.au (03) 9639 2798
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Contact_Senator_or_Member?MPID=GB6
03) 9890 7022
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy senator.conroy@aph.gov.au (03) 9391 4952
Senator Gavin Marshall senator.marshall@aph.gov.au (03) 9348 9699
CANDIDATES VICTORIA
Chris Buckingham for McMillan Chris.Buckingham@vic.alp.org.au 0405 518 057
Paul Klisaris – for Ashton paul.klisaris@vic.alp.org.au 0412 516 026
Hovig Melkonian – for Casey hovigmelkonian@australianlabor.com.au 0459 959 095
Stefanie Perri – for Chisholm stefanie.perri@australianlabor.com.au (03) 9544 2192
Shashi Bhatti – for Gippsland https://www.facebook.com/search/str/Shashi%2BBhatti/keywords_top
Carl Katter – for Higgins carl@carlkatter.com 0432 507 140
Libby Coker, for Corangamite, libby.coker@libbycoker.com.au 0400 267 288
Matthew Coote – for Goldstein matthew.coote@vic.alp.org.au 0435 496 625
Tony Clark – for Deakin (03) 8819 0398 http://tonyclark.net.au/Contact
Simon Curtis for Latrobe simon.curtis@vic.alp.org.au 0400 174 155
Marg D’Arcy marg@margdarcy.com 0409859046
Sophie Ismail for Melbourne sophie4melbourne@gmail.com 0474 014 540
Eric Kerr – for Indi Eric.Kerr@vic.alp.org.au
Peta Murphy – for Dunkley 0468 778 143 peta.murphy@vic.alp.org.au
Carolyn Gleixner – for Flinders carolyngleixneralp@gmail.com (03) 5989 0537
Adam Rundell for Menzies Adam.Rundell@vic.alp.org.au
Lydia Senior – for Mallee lydia@lydiasenior.com.au 0447 133 893
Alan Williams for Murray Alan.Williams@vic.alp.org.au
Government MPs push for stifling environmental protests
Ministers push for laws to make it harder for greenies to mount environmental challenges on major developments, June 6, 2016 Steven Scott The Courier-Mail SENIOR Government ministers are planning to ramp up pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to make it harder for green groups to challenge major developments.
The Courier-Mail can reveal several senior MPs have already canvassed options to discourage legal challenges to projects such as mines and dams, including by imposing time limits on appeals.
Mr Turnbull will face increased pressure from his own MPs should he win the July 2 election. Ministers have discussed ways to make it easier for courts to impose costs orders against funders of court cases, to prevent green groups using shelf organisations to limit their financial risk.
The move would revive former prime minister Tony Abbott’s controversial plans to restrict environmental challenges.
Mr Abbott wanted to change the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to limit green groups’ challenges after the Mackay Conservation Group last year used the law to hold up the approval of Adani’s central Queensland mine.
The plan is still Coalition policy but it has been quietly shelved because there was not enough support to pass the changes through the Senate and some ministers held concerns about the proposed changes……http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ministers-push-for-laws-to-make-it-harder-for-greenies-to-mount-environmental-challenges-on-major-developments/news-story/9cf9f552fb112db47058f3f72d24cb9d
Hi-tech renewable energy jobs reviving south-west Victoria’s economy
High-tech, clean energy jobs key to future of Geelong, south-west Victoria, ABC News, 5 June 16 By Cameron Best Steve Garner understands how important his wind farm manufacturing business is for the town of Portland in south-west Victoria.
As the state’s traditional manufacturing base continues to decline, jobseekers and the wider economy are looking for the jobs of the future.
Six months ago, Mr Garner’s Keppel Prince Engineering facility lay idle under the Federal Government’s freeze on new wind energy investment and former prime minister Tony Abbott’s desire to reduce the growth rate of what he labelled as “visually awful” wind farms.
Now, under a new Clean Energy Finance Corporation mandate, the production line at Keppel Prince is back up and running with about 300 workers making towers for a project near Ararat.
It has come just in time for Portland, which is facing the possibility of life without its major employer……
“the stronger we can grow something like this [facility], that actually does create a lot of jobs, the better off we’re going to be.
“And if we get government support to do that, we’ve then got a sustainable business for a long period of time.”…
New-wave tech replacing manufacturing of old
High-tech industries are springing up to utilise some of the skilled workers coming out of the automotive industry but in order to remain globally competitive, this new wave of advanced manufacturers cannot afford to be as labour-intensive as the companies of old…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-05/high-tech,-clean-energy-jobs-the-key-to-geelong-future/7476816
Fantastic news! Port Augusta’s opportunity to become a world class solar energy hub
Revealed: Proposal for $1.2bn solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta June 4, 2016 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/revealed-proposal-for-12bn-solar-thermal-power-plant-at-port-augusta/news-story/58e18b826e4ecedfb57a9d11dc5fe7ba Sheradyn Holderhead Tory Shepherd A NEW proposal for a $1.2 billion solar thermal plant at Port Augusta, backed by former federal Liberal leader Dr John Hewson, can be revealed by The Advertiser just weeks after the city was hit with the closure of its power station.
Solastor Australia will next week unveil its plans to build a solar thermal power station with a generation capacity up to 170 megawatts and energy storage capabilities, The Advertiser has discovered.
While details of the project remain secret until an official announcement on Tuesday, a similar proposal from US company SolarReserve would create up to 1000 jobs during construction and about 50 permanent jobs.
Solastor Australia chairman Dr Hewson will reveal the company intends to build a fully integrated, solar thermal power station and energy storage system to provide SA with “24/7 base load and peak load generation”.
“We’ll be announcing it all on Tuesday,” he said last night. “This is world-class. We think this is something we can roll out not only across Australia but internationally. It’s Australian technology, it gives Australia a real edge … in actually being able to turn sunlight into effective baseload energy.”
The Advertiser understands behind-the-scenes work on the proposal has been underway for months. The company has a plant in China and has been working in the Middle East.
And Solastor believes that it can produce affordable energy from the plant. In a statement, Solastor Australia said the proposed power station would cost about $1.2 billion and would have a generation capacity of 110mW in winter and 170mW in summer.
“Once completed, it will generate approximately 1.25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per annum, which is sufficient to provide power to more than 200,000 Australian homes,” the statement said.
Both Federal and State governments are aware of the plans — and consider it to be a legitimate proposal.
Last month, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt promised financial support for the 110mW SolarReserve project, which until now was the only publicly known proposal for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson said the second proposal was “fantastic news” and, along with four other renewable energy projects, was the “saving grace” for the town and the state’s economy.
“This reinforces comments in the past that Port Augusta will be the renewable capital of Australia,” he said. “This would be South Australia and Australia transitioning to a new world and would be a saving grace for Port Augusta and the SA economy.”
Mr Johnson said this proposal was the fifth renewable energy power station plan, which also included two 100mW solar panel farms, and a combined wind turbine and solar panel farm, the approval of which was expected to be announced next week
These projects will support Arrium and the skilled workforce we have, as well as benefiting small business throughout the region,” Mr Johnson said. “All up these projects would replace the generation from the coal-powered plant.” Repower Port Augusta campaigner Dan Spencer said it was great news that more companies were coming forward with proposals.
“Port Augusta really has the opportunity to become a renewable energy hub,” he said.
“More and more proponents are coming forward and saying they want to invest which is really exciting.
“There’s no reason we couldn’t see both these solar projects get built. The more projects, the more investment, the more clean energy.”
In April a Repower Port Augusta-commissioned ReachTEL poll of 1195 people showed that three-quarters believed the Federal Government should help fund the construction of a solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta.
Submission time again – this time to South Australian Parliamentary Committee
JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
South Australian ‘Citizens’ Jury’ to kick off expensive nuclear publicity juggernaut
Jay Weatherill launches a nuclear propaganda juggernaut, Independent Australia 1 June 2016, Noel Wauchope examines Jay Weatherill’s elaborate publicity campaign featuring so-called “citizens’ juries” ahead of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN Premier Jay Weatherill is launching an all out campaign to inform the public about the recent Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission‘s plan for a global nuclear waste importing industry.
This is all going to be terribly democratic, we are told. There will be “citizens’ jury” meetings on 25-26 June and 9-10 July.
I am, in fact, in favour of the citizens’ jury idea. Instead of us being “talked down” to by experts (who are likely to have a vested interest in the nuclear waste import plan), ordinary non-experts hear all the evidence and opposing opinions, discuss these and come up with a sensible verdict……
My first problem with the South Australian citizens’ juries on nuclear waste importing is that the first jury isn’t given a true jury role.
The letter sent to potential jury participants says that their task will be to:
‘… produce an independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised by the Royal Commission’s report.’
This jury will not produce a verdict on whether or not the jury thinks that the nuclear waste import plan should go ahead….It is going to provide material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission‘s information campaign. And how will this jury gather this information? Well, it will presumably be informed by the newly created Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency — about which nobody seems to know anything. Who are the members?……
There are other questions as to its role. A citizens’ jury is supposed to have an independent advisory panel. Who will be on this panel? It’s also supposed to have an independent monitor supervising its meetings. Who will this be? The jury will hear expert witnesses. Who will they be? And where will the jury get its documentary information? How transparent will this citizens’ jury be?
One comforting thought is that newDemocracy’s reputation is at stake if their jury process is seen to be unfair. However, will they be able to withstand the pro-nuclear pressure from the Weatherill Government and Kevin Scarce‘s Royal Commission crew?……
Meanwhile, Jay Weatherill has wasted no time in setting out the rest of the process that will follow this first Citizens’ Jury meeting….
This again raises those questions about just who will be informing the public, with what materials and so forth. And there’s another great question that nobody seems keen to answer.
How much is this nuclear publicity juggernaut going to cost taxpayers? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jay-weatherill-launches-a-nuclear-propaganda-juggernaut,9055
Globally unprecedented scale of Nuclear waste shipments target Australia:
Nuclear Waste Brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner. 3 June 16 An un-declared Australia port is targeted to receive a globally unprecedented scale of high level nuclear waste transport and shipping, facing some 100 000 tonnes of SNF waste over a circa 33 year period of proposed peak Nuclear port operations from project Year 11 to Year 45 (Jacobs MCM, Executive Summary, Figure 3 Timeline of spent fuel transfers, p.5).
This is some 25 per cent higher than the global total of 80 000 tonnes of SNF waste shipped around the world in a 45 year period since 1971 according to the World Nuclear Association report “Transport of Radioactive Materials” (Sept 2015) and the Jacobs MCM consultancy (p.152).
A total of 30 000 tonnes of high level nuclear wastes were shipped to the UK Sellafield reprocessing facility and a total of 40 000 tonnes was shipped to the French La Hague reprocessing facility, by far the world’s largest nuclear ports, in the 45 year period since 1971 (WNA report).
An undeclared Australian port is targeted to take over three times the total tonnage of high level nuclear waste shipped to Sellafield and two and a half times the total tonnage shipped to La Hague.
Some 400 waste ships of high level nuclear waste, totalling 90 000 tonnes SNF waste and requiring 9 000 transport casks, are to be brought into Australia in a 30 year period of peak port operations.
In a comparable 30 year period, there were some 160 high level nuclear waste shipments from Japan to Europe from 1969 to late 1990’s, totalling 7 040 tonnes SNF waste and involving some 4 000 nuclear waste transport casks (WNA report).
Sweden has shipped over 4 500 tonnes SNF waste around the Swedish coast to their CLAB central interim storage facility by mid-2015 (WNA report). Australia is proposed to do so every 18 months.
Questions on the location of a Nuclear port and on the safety of waste shipments:
The SA State government must publicly explain the basis for the farcical claim made by Jacobs MCM (Introduction p.11) of “an abundance of locations” suitable for deep sea Nuclear port sites in SA.
Is a new deep sea Nuclear port and high level SNF waste storage site to be imposed in the coastal region south of Whyalla? Or as reported in The Australian “World’s nuke waste may pass through NT, SA” (12 May 2016): Is the Port of Darwin also in the Nuclear target range?
The Final Report Concludes: “…if a cask was lost at sea and was irrecoverable, there is a potential for some members of the public consuming locally sourced seafood to receive a very small dose of radiation”; and Concludes that terrorist attack scenarios are conceivable and rocket attack has the greatest potential to cause a release of radiation (Appendix L – Transport risk analysis p.312).
A further Jacobs MCM desk top Concludes that radioactivity that escapes from an unrecovered and degrading cask is expected “to be diluted in thousands of cubic kilometres of seawater” (“Safety and risks in the transportation of radioactive material to and from Australia”, April 2016, p.50). see http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke says Citizens’ Jury not about manufacturing nuclear consent
Nuclear jury about the big picture, not manufacturing consent. InDaily, Tom Richardson, 3 June 16 The citizens’ jury beginning this month to debate South Australia’s nuclear future is not an attempt to manufacture the “social consent” alluded to by Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, but a bid to establish whether it exists, says one of the architects of the forum.
InDaily can reveal that SA-based startup DemocracyCo has won the tender to deliver the first of the two planned Citizens’ Juries, to be held over two weekends, beginning on June 25.
The company, which also convened last year’s forum on dog and cat management, will oversee a randomly-selected congregation of 50 South Australians to ponder issues surrounding the prospective local establishment of a high-level nuclear waste dump. The jury selection process was conducted by a separate company, the Sydney-based New Democracy Foundation.
New DemocracyCo’s co-CEO Emily Jenke told InDaily the process was part of a broader body of work whose aim was not to engineer public support, but to “get an understanding by the end of the year as to whether the community are comfortable continuing this discussion”.
“This process… is about understanding; it’s not trying to build social consent, but understanding whether it’s there or not,” Jenke said. Continue reading
Senator Jacqui Lambie comes out fully supporting the nuclear industry
NUCLEAR POWER https://twitter.com/JacquiLambie
JLN notes that should the majority of Australians agree to allow the establishment of a home-grown industry of nuclear power generation; this of course will significantly de-carbonise our base-load national energy supply and achieve the same purpose as a carbon tax or ETS for the environment, while keeping the cost of electricity low and competitive with our major trading partners.
JLN notes that Australia has more than 30% of the world’s known uranium resources and has the potential to become the new Saudi Arabia of the 21stCentury, which continues to embrace the rapidly advancing technologies and new safer methods of nuclear power generation.
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
