Ivan Quail’s Submission – a devastating fact-filled critique of the costly, dangerous unhealthy nuclear industry.
One year of operation of a single, large nuclear power plant, generates as much of longpersisting radioactive poisons as one thousand Hiroshima-types atomic bombs. There is no way the electric power can be generated in nuclear plants without generating the radioactive poisons.
France’s troubled nuclear fleet a bigger problem for Europe than Russia gas. France caps its consumer power bills – to maintain the myth of “cheap” nuclear and to protect French pride .
In 100,000 years’ time the planet would still not have recovered from Mayak, Chernobyl, Doenreagh, Hanford, Rocky flats, Marshall Islands, Montebello, Maralinga and Fukushima; to name a few.
Average life expectancy in Ukraine and Belarus has REDUCED 4 yrs to age 68. Each year 6000 babies are born with “Chernobyl Heart” Half of them die! Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities.• 85 percent of Belarusian children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims. UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, including 38 percent increase in malignant tumours, 43 percent in blood circulatory illnesses and 63 percent in disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Submission No 61 [This submission contains numerous links which are all visible on the original, but not all here]
A few words about myself on this issue. I have been studying the Uranium fuel cycle,
nuclear energy and the biological and genetic effects of radiation for over 40 years. I
have read a dozen or more books and hundreds of scientific and medical papers on
the topics.
AUKUS nuclear subs deal should torpedo Kimba radioactive waste plan
23 Mar 23, A new federal government process to identify a site for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste from future nuclear submarines should signal the end of the push for a national radioactive waste facility at Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula, environmentalists say.
The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday joined with peak state group Conservation SA to deliver a petition from 10,000 people calling on Resources Minister Madeleine King to ‘stop the double-handling and relocation of radioactive waste to a highly contested facility proposed near Kimba.’
Defence Minister Richard Marles has announced the search for a new site to store high level radioactive waste will commence next year.
“It makes no sense to have multiple federal processes in train seeking to find sites to store and dispose of radioactive waste,” said ACF nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney.
“The federal nuclear regulator has stated existing intermediate level waste can be securely managed at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisations (ANSTO) Lucas Heights facility for ‘decades to come’.
“This waste should be kept at ANSTO and moved only when a future site has been selected for high-level waste.
“This would avoid unnecessary duplication, cost and risk and would recognise and respect the clear opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners to the current waste plan.”
Federal government ministers have repeatedly said AUKUS is a game-changer. ACF is calling for the government to demonstrate this in relation to radioactive waste management by changing the present deficient and divisive waste game around Kimba.
“Against the backdrop of escalating cost and complexity associated with future AUKUS waste it makes no sense to maintain a politicised and piecemeal approach to radioactive waste management in Australia”.
Watch New Barngarla video calling for an end to the Kimba proposal:
Some Labor and Independent members of parliament not happy with AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
Above – Labor MP Josh Wilson not happy about the nuclear submarine deal
Labor’s old guard follow Keating into the trenches over $368b submarine deal The Age, 22 Mar 23
KEY POINTS
- Kim Carr has called AUKUS a “huge leap into the dark”, joining other high-profile Labor members in criticising the deal.
- Labor MP Josh Wilson told Parliament that Australia is yet to solve the problem of dealing with radioactive waste.
- Teal independents have raised concerns over nuclear proliferation and how AUKUS will be funded.
Former federal cabinet minister Kim Carr has joined Labor colleagues in raising deep concerns about the AUKUS pact after federal MPs questioned the deal in parliament and some party members sought to mobilise against the decades-long commitment.
Carr voiced doubts about the $368 billion cost of the agreement on nuclear-powered submarines as well as the strategic risk of a “forward defence” policy that he compared to the approach that drew Australia into the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
The comments intensify the row over the sweeping defence plan after former prime minister Paul Keating, former foreign minister Bob Carr and former foreign minister Gareth Evans challenged it with opinions ranging from ferocious criticism to cautious doubt.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese backed the defence policy in the regular Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House on Tuesday after three MPs raised questions about its cost, the concerns from voters about Australian sovereignty and the need for 20,000 workers to complete the task.
But Kim Carr, who held portfolios such as industry and defence materiel during the Rudd and Gillard governments and left parliament at the last election, said AUKUS was a “huge leap into the dark” that depended heavily on the United States.
“The fundamental question is whether this is the best use of $368 billion of public money in defence of Australia,” he said.
“I don’t believe the question has been answered. And I am deeply concerned about a revival of a forward defence policy, given our performance in Vietnam, so there are several levels on which we should question this plan more closely.
“Given it’s 20 years since Iraq, you can hardly say our security agencies should not be questioned when they provide their assessments.”
The growing public debate highlights the unrest within the party membership and the test for Albanese in shoring up support from Labor voters who may shift support to the Greens after the smaller party came out strongly against AUKUS.
Bob Carr, who was premier of NSW for a decade before serving as foreign minister in the Gillard government, also expressed concern about the way the AUKUS agreement could take Australia into a conflict alongside the United States.
“I want upheld the notion that even under ANZUS, there should be no assumption of Australian engagement,” he said.
Last Friday, former Gillard government environment minister Peter Garrett voiced his own objections to the deal, saying in a social media post that “AUKUS stinks”……..
Western Australian Labor MP Josh Wilson aired his concerns on the floor of Parliament on Monday night by saying Australia was yet to solve the problem of low-level radioactive waste, let alone the waste from a future fleet with nuclear reactors
…………………………….. members of the crossbench expressed concerns about the implications.
“I’m concerned about the cost/benefit analysis of AUKUS and the risk of losing sovereignty over Australian defence resources,” said Zali Steggall, the member for Warringah.
Zoe Daniel, the member for Goldstein, said constituents had been in touch about the major shift in Australia’s strategic approach.
“On their behalf, I will be seeking to understand whether such an unequivocal and long-term alignment with the United States is in Australia’s best interest,” she said.
Kylea Tink, the member for North Sydney, said she was worried about nuclear proliferation and Sophie Scamps, the member for Mackellar, said she wanted more information about funding.
“The Albanese government needs to explain to the Australian people how it intends to pay for this program,” she said. “The vulnerable should not be sacrificed to pay for this additional budgetary spending.” https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/labor-s-old-guard-follow-keating-into-the-trenches-over-368b-submarine-deal-20230321-p5cu1h.html
Guardian Essential Poll: AUKUS support collapses, 3-in-4 oppose
The cacophony of media, think tank, and political voices cabal haven’t yet convinced the Australian public of the need to rush into war alongside the US. But if the trend in opinion on our previous disastrous policy of following the Americans is any guide it is very likely that a majority of Australians will rate a war over Taiwan as a big mistake.
Pearls and Irritations, By Noel TurnbullMar 23, 2023
Reflecting the diminishing public support for the AUKUS deal, a new Guardian Essential Poll has found that only one quarter of Australians support paying the $368bn price tag to acquire nuclear submarines. For decades Australians were gung ho about going to war – almost any war. Today – despite the best efforts of the Nine Media (Peter Hartcher in particular) and other media – they are now far more hesitant.
Indeed, an analysis of community opinion from the start of the Vietnam war to the likelihood of war over Taiwan, shows hesitancy translates into opposition the longer the war lasts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Now we face another possible war – this time with China – and it is worth examining what both Australians and Taiwanese think of that prospect.
In June 2021 the Lowy Institute’s annual poll showed that, for the first time, more Australians view China as a security threat than an economic partner, despite the country remaining Australia’s biggest trading partner.
In June 2022 the Lowy Institute found that the majority of Australians (56%) said China was ‘more to blame’ for the tensions than Australia while 38% said Australia and China were equally to blame. Just 4% said Australia was more to blame.
A slim majority of the 2022 respondents (52%) viewed a potential military conflict between the US and China as a critical threat to Australia’s interests over the coming decade. But the poll also showed the public wants to avoid being dragged into war. More than half those polled (57%) said that in such a conflict “Australia should remain neutral”. Some 41% said Canberra should support the US and 1% said it should support China.
The Lowy study showed the public also had strong views on our relations with the US and China policy with 77% agreeing with the statement: “Australia’s alliance with the United States makes it more likely Australia will be drawn into a war in Asia that would not be in Australia’s interests” – up eight points since 2019.
As for the US-Australian motivation for the next war, Taiwan, opinion there has been developing in strange ways. According to an Economist special report on Taiwan (11 March 2023) in 1992 only 17.3% the Taiwan population identified as Taiwanese compared with 25.5% as Chinese and 4.4% as both. By 2022 a National Chengchi University study found 61% of respondents identifying as Taiwanese, 2.7% as Chinese and 46.4% as both.
Polls indicate that more than half of Taiwanese support the status quo of de facto independence and don’t have a lot of faith in whether the US would support them against a Chinese invasion with the Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation finding that between 2021 and 2022 confidence in whether America would send troops to defend Taiwan against an invasion fell from 65% to 34.4%. They were actually more confident of Japanese support than American.
Meanwhile we wait to see what the next substantial polls say about the Albanese Government and Taiwan. We know from Vietnam to Iraq Australians start off by opposing the proposed wars; support them when troops are actually fighting; and, then begin to oppose them as the promised victory doesn’t eventuate.
This new potential war is on a scale, though, which makes Vietnam and Iraq seem insignificant.
The cacophony of media, think tank, and political voices cabal haven’t yet convinced the Australian public of the need to rush into war alongside the US. But if the trend in opinion on our previous disastrous policy of following the Americans is any guide it is very likely that a majority of Australians will rate a war over Taiwan as a big mistake.
It may also be an indicator of how attitudes to the Aukus deal might evolve. A Guardian Essential poll in 2021 disclosed Australians’ worries that the project would strain relations with China and Europe…………………….. https://johnmenadue.com/guardian-essential-poll-aukus-support-collapses-3-in-4-oppose/
PM flags nuclear prohibition treaty still on agenda despite AUKUS subs deal
Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor still plans to sign an international treaty on nuclear weapons amid concerns about the AUKUS deal.
Catie McLeod, news.com.au 23 Mar 23
Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor still plans to sign a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons amid concerns the AUKUS submarine deal will breach Australia’s international obligations on the issue.
Under the trilateral security agreement with the United States and the UK, Australia will become the first non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear-powered submarines by seeking an exemption from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The government has said the submarines will only use nuclear propulsion and would not have nuclear weapons.
Despite this iron-clad assurance, some countries in the Indo-Pacific have raised concerns the submarine deal is a breach of Australia’s existing nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations, and that it might stop it from ratifying an additional treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Australia made a binding commitment to never acquire nuclear weapons when it ratified the international treaty on non-proliferation 50 years ago but it is yet to sign or ratify a newer treaty created in 2017 that binds member countries to outlawing nuclear weapons all together.
Labor first committed to signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at its National Conference in 2018 and reaffirmed that commitment in 2022.
Speaking in parliament on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said Labor would stick with the commitment and said Australia’s clear position was that a world without nuclear weapons “would be a very good thing”.
“We don’t acquire them ourselves, we wish that they weren’t there,” Mr Albanese said after independent Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel asked him if Labor would sign the nuclear prohibition treaty.
“We will do is we will work systematically and methodically through the issues and in accordance with the commitments that were made in the national platform.”…………………. https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pm-flags-nuclear-prohibition-treaty-still-on-agenda-despite-aukus-subs-deal/news-story/f73813339997b2ca7efaaa8323813f0d
Ray Tauss Submission – for health, safety, and future generations’ well-being – Australia’s nuclear bans should NOT be repealed
Submission No 67 to: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Environment and
Communications Re: Senate inquiry into nuclear power
Nuclear power begins with uranium mining
Nuclear power generation uses uranium. Mining of uranium produces wastes. Wastes can be used for the
extraction of radioactive material. 300,000 years is how long the wastes must be safeguarded before they can be relatively safe for fauna and people. The wastes need to be safeguarded against emitting radiation to the
atmosphere and environment, and safeguarded against theft and safeguarded against being used for terrorism
and safeguarded against war.
Nuclear power plants
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to sabotage, bombing, implosion, explosion, fire, loss of coolant, earthquake and asteroid impact.
I submit that neither nuclear power nor other nuclear energy should be produced or used in Australia.
Personnel working or volunteering in the nuclear sector
Workers in the nuclear industry (including mining radioactive ores, mining waste storage, nuclear power plant
products and radioactive wastes) are subject to corruption, dishonesty, bribery, persuasion, blackmail and illegal dealings. Any single one of these attributes compromises the safety of a nuclear plant, and compromises the integrity of protection from misuse of nuclear waste products.
I submit that removal of prohibitions on production of nuclear energy is deleterious to safe and healthy futures for people in Australia in this century and beyond and that prohibitions on production of nuclear energy must be maintained.
Management of wastes from nuclear power production
Nuclear wastes are subject to use in terrorist acts, in war, and in the production of energy and other outputs.
Nuclear wastes impose high storage and safe maintenance costs on the country where the wastes are. Wastes
from nuclear power production need to be guarded for some 300,000 years. Wastes carry the potential for
accidental and deliberate acts that can have catastrophic outcomes on human health, environmental health, and
public and private infrastructure.
I submit that hazards and risks associated with nuclear wastes would be exacerbated by production of nuclear
power in Australia and that those hazards and risks should be avoided by maintaining a total prohibition on
production of nuclear energy in Australia. I also submit that nuclear power should be prohibited in any country,
land area, sea area and terrestrial or non-terrestrial air space controlled or owned by Australia.
Risk to future generations
Radioactive products from mining of radioactive and uranium ores, and products of nuclear power generation
retain radioactivity at levels unsafe for human health as well as for human and animal environments for some
300,000 years. Dealing, storing, and safeguarding those ores, ore products, and the wastes from nuclear power
production will confer risks and costs on future generations of people and those hazards, costs, health and
environmental risks would be an wholly unreasonable imposition of all current and future generations.
I submit that the hazards, risks and safety costs imposed on future generations by any removal of prohibitions on nuclear energy creation and production would be unreasonable and inequitable for all future generations of
people.
I submit that the following Sections of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 should not be repealed:
Section 10
I submit that the following parts or Sections of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 should not be repealed:
Section 37J
Section 140A
Section 146M
Paragraph 305(2)(d) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Greg Chapman Submission – Nuclear power is dirty and its fallout lasts forever.
Submission no 66. To Senate Estimates Committee against Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
How many times do we have to remind ultra-conservative politicians that Australia doesn’t
need or want nuclear power stations or nuclear powered war machines?
Australia has more than enough sustainable renewable energy without having to resort to
dangerous and world-shattering atomic energy.
I live near Darwin River Dam – the water supply for Darwin. On the other side of the Dam is
Rum Jungle Uranium site. It is still radioactive after hundreds of millions of dollars of
remediation since it closed in 1971. Darwin Dam water is tested daily before it reaches city
taps. My bore water is never tested. Over 17,000 people down here have untested water
bores. I’ve had friends who died from unexplained cancers. This is the legacy of being
colonised by the UK and US for their militaries to make nuclear weapons.
Australia has several nuclear bomb testing sites still giving off high levels of radioactivity
because of our unequal ‘alliances’ with the UK and US.
Why does it seem to be that these ultra-conservatives want to make us part of the nuclear
industry and lobby for ‘clean’ nuclear energy when Australian governments make
arrangements with the UK/US to buy nuclear submarines and house B52s with nuclear
weapon capabilities?
Nuclear power is not clean or sustainable. It’s dirty and its fallout lasts forever.
Let’s say we agree to have nuclear energy. We would need to:
Consult fairly, openly and accountably with individuals and communities likely to be
affected;
Arrange constantly assessed assurance and insurance agreements locally, nationally
and internationally – including jurisdictional arrangements between the
Commonwealth and states/territories;
Provide occupational health and safety to a yet to be trained Australian workforce and
educate workers and their families on the dangers of reactor workers taking work
home;
Australia can’t depend on overseas workers to fill highly sophisticated scientific and
technical officer jobs. After 40 years of educational neglect, we can’t rely on other
countries to supply such employment skills and needs;
Have highly secure sites for nuclear facilities;
Allocate huge amounts of water for cooling and preventing meltdown;
Connect power infrastructure to the grid without jeopardising other energy
infrastructure;
Provide extremely safe transport for nuclear materials with warnings and signs
everywhere possible on the transport vehicles and roads used;
Safely decommission reactors – also requiring a huge, well-trained workforce and a
huge and well-trained public service to oversee this;
Be able to do what no other nuclear nation has yet done: safely manage and store
nuclear waste for thousands of years, and
Reassure our non-nuclear neighbours
Australia has colonised and ignored the basic needs and communal responsibilities of our
first nation people – as well as making war on other nations not toeing our white, mainstream
liberal dream of private, individual ownership. Can we really be trusted to use nuclear energy
for the social good of the world? How do we reconcile commissioning volatile reactor
stations in a highly unpredictable atmosphere of climate change? Will another Chenobyl help
us achieve a circular economy and zero waste in the near future – or ever?
Where we even put these monsters? Not in my backyard – that’s for sure! https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Judy Schneider Submission – keep Australia’s nuclear bans, use renewables, including tidal energy
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Submission 70
I wish to make a submission re lifting the ban on creating energy from nuclear sources.
Fortunately, we have not had a long history of nuclear production or disasters.
The ban on nuclear energy production was a great step forward in making Australia safe from impacts of another disaster.
Sure, we need more renewable energy resources and speed up our transition to less climate destroying fossil fuels. Some countries use biomass energy, but that creates pollution too.
Why don’t we use water – “our home is girt by sea”.
Tidal energy is a renewable energy powered by the natural rise and fall of ocean tides and currents. Some of these technologies include turbines and paddles. Tidal energy is produced by the surge of ocean waters during the rise and fall of tides. Tidal energy is a renewable source of energy.
Of course, such tidal plants would need to be constructed away from marine migration areas.
Australia has had problems in the past, e.g. Maralinga and where to dispose of https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Jessica Wysser- Submission to Senate – Nuclear power a dangerous distraction from real climate action
To SenateCommittee on Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 65
The ban on nuclear power in Australia must remain in place. I support the ban and ask the Senate
Standing Committees to support the continuation of this ban. I am concerned that further nuclear promotion risks delaying the action Australia needs to address the challenges, and maximise the opportunities, of meaningful climate action.
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated by climate
change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage,
drought, and jelly-fish swarms. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum states: “You need to solve
global warming for nuclear plants to survive.” Australia does not want or need a nuclear
reactor under these conditions as the country is already affected by climate change and we
can see that it is progressively worsening.
Nuclear power programs have provided cover for numerous weapons programs and an
expansion of nuclear power would worsen the situation. Former US Vice President Al Gore
neatly summarised the problem: “For eight years in the White House, every weaponsproliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program.
And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal … then
we’d have to put them in so many places we’d run that proliferation risk right off the
reasonability scale.”
Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed military or terrorist targets. The
current situation in Ukraine illustrates the risks: electricity supply necessary for reactor
cooling has been repeatedly disrupted by military strikes, posing serious risks of nuclear core
meltdowns. Prior to Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine, there have been numerous military
attacks on nuclear plants. Examples include Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in
1981; the United States’ destruction of two smaller research reactors in Iraq in 1991;
attempted military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980 –
88 war; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s
bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007.
Having a nuclear reactor opens the country up to the possibility of making Australia a target. Australians would never want or desire this.
Australia needs effective climate action now but nuclear power would slow the transition to a
low-carbon economy. It would increase electricity costs and unnecessarily introduce the
challenges and risks associated with high-level nuclear waste management and the potential
for catastrophic accidents, with profound intergenerational implications for Australians.
Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, slow and unwanted. Our energy future is renewable
not radioactive.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
For the only planet we have https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
The AUKUS nuclear deal “stinks” – former environment minister Peter Garret
Former Labor environment minister Peter Garrett has lashed the Aukus
nuclear submarine deal, calling the former Coalition administration’s
decision “the most costly and risky action ever taken by any Australian
government” and saying Anthony Albanese’s decision to back it was a
departure from established ALP policy.
The Midnight Oil frontman and longtime nuclear disarmament activist claimed the $368 billion deal
“stinks”, suggesting the money could be better spent and raising
concerns about how Australia will dispose of nuclear waste from the boats.
Guardian 17th March 2023
Aukus nuclear submarine deal will be ‘too big to fail’, Richard Marles says
Australia’s defence minister plays down concerns multi-decade plan could be vulnerable to political changes in the US and UK
Daniel Hurst, Guardian, 17 Mar 23
Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine deal with the US and the UK will rapidly become “too big to fail”, the deputy prime minister has said.
Richard Marles made the comment in an interview with Guardian Australia’s politics podcast, pushing back at the idea the multidecade Aukus plan could be vulnerable to political changes in both the US and the UK.
He also predicted that broader diplomatic efforts to stabilise the relationship between Australia and China would “continue largely unaffected by what has been announced during the course of this week”.
As the minister for defence, Marles has been at the centre of the Aukus planning. He said he had felt the “gravity” and “responsibility” of this week’s announcement of sweeping, staged plans that involve Australian spending of up to $368bn by the mid-2050s.
One point of contention has been the Australian promise to provide $3bn in funding over the next four years to subsidise the submarine production base in the other two countries, mostly the US, and what guarantees there were that the US would actually proceed with selling three to five Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s.
Asked what contracts or agreements sat underneath the high-level political commitment announced in San Diego this week, Marles said the project was “a shared endeavour of the three countries”.
“There is going to be a legal underpinning to this … and there is going to need to be a treaty-level document between our three countries, so there is a whole lot of legality which will be worked through,” Marles said.
“But in so many ways this transcends that [given] the sheer size of the decision to share this capability with Australia. And having taken the step of doing that, which we’ve done, puts all three countries in a position where it’s too big for it to fail on the part of any of those countries.”
Marles said all three countries were “deeply committed to each other’s success in this project” and that was what gave him “a sense of assurance that this is going to play out in the way that we want it to play out”.
“This must work for the US, this must work for the UK, as much as it must work for Australia,” he said……………….
Marles also addressed questions about whether the submarines could become obsolete, given that an Australian National University report, Transparent Oceans?, found that scientific and technological advancements predicted oceans were “likely” or “very likely” to become transparent by the 2050s.
“Just as there is a lot of effort going into illuminating the seas, there is a lot of effort going into creating more stealth around a submarine,” Marles said……………………..
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said this week that the best way for Australia to reassure the region about the submarine plan would be to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
It is Labor party policy to do so, but only “after taking account” of several factors, including the need for an effective verification and enforcement architecture and work to achieve universal support from other nations. The nuclear weapons states including the US have opposed the treaty, arguing it is out of step with the current security environment.
Marles said Australia wanted “a world where there are no nuclear weapons”, and had sent observers to the first meeting in Vienna last year………… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/17/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-will-be-too-big-to-fail-richard-marles-says?CMP=share_btn_tw
Labor Premiers’ dispute over location for AUKUS nuclear wastes, – but planned Kimba waste dump is”now dead in the water”?
Mr Wilkins told ABC Radio Adelaide that the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump no longer made sense, and that any future site to store submarine reactor spent fuel should also accept waste that would have gone to Kimba.
“The proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump must now be dead in the water,” he said
Nuclear waste divisions intensify between Labor premiers over AUKUS submarine deal
ABC, 18 Mar 23
South Australia’s premier has hit back at suggestions from Labor counterparts that his state should take nuclear waste from the future AUKUS fleet, saying the decision on where the waste goes should be based on the “nation’s interests”…………….
Divisions within Labor ranks over AUKUS — including over its $368 billion cost, and its strategic aims and consequences — have become increasingly apparent since Paul Keating’s blistering attack on what he described as the “worst international decision” by a Labor government since conscription.
While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese yesterday rebuked Mr Keating, Labor premiers have since voiced opposition to accepting nuclear waste from the AUKUS subs in their states.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said yesterday it was not “unreasonable” to suggest that, since South Australia is gaining jobs, it should also accept the spent fuel rods when the submarines reach the end of their service.
“I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” he said.
West Australian Premier Mark McGowan voiced similar sentiment, suggesting South Australia take on a nuclear waste facility.
But while Mr Malinauskas said that the possibility of SA taking waste could not be ruled out, he rejected Mr Andrews’s claim that SA had a responsibility to take the waste because it was taking the jobs.
“No, because that implies that somehow that this isn’t a national endeavour,” he said……………………
Conservation Council of SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said discussion of a “short-term political stoush between state premiers” overlooked the major challenges involved in storing nuclear waste.
“We’re talking about waste that needs to be kept safe from humans for tens of thousands of years, basically beyond our civilisation, so this needs to be an incredibly well-considered decision,” he said.
“[There] needs to be a multi-billion-dollar project to house the waste.”
Mr Wilkins told ABC Radio Adelaide that the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump no longer made sense, and that any future site to store submarine reactor spent fuel should also accept waste that would have gone to Kimba.
“The proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump must now be dead in the water,” he said………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-17/sa-premier-hits-back-at-nuclear-waste-claims/102109026
Deborah Pergolotti – Submission to Senate refutes Senator Canavan’s introductory speech.
Re Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Submission 56
Senator Canavan and sponsors to the following bill:
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Firstly, I need to confirm this is a personal communication and not on behalf of any organisation.
On the one hand, I need to congratulate you for recognising that this current overwhelming push for
renewables is ill-conceived, problematic, and will only hurt Australia’s future as well as worsen the situation
for biodiversity losses
On the other hand, nuclear power is NOT a desirable alternative to head towards. I would like to address
some of the components in the bill’s introductory speech by Senator Canavan. The statements in italics are
taken from the Senator’s speech.
“Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and
Italy. Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station and Italy gets much of its imported electricity from
France, where three quarters of the electricity is produced by nuclear.”
Italy has a very good reason for not building nuclear power: they have a major fault line running up the
center of the country (and the Saudi’s should be cautious as well since they are sitting on top of a subduction
zone). Anyone who builds a nuclear facility close to an active fault line is negligent, reckless or at minimum
ignorant. This will become very apparent in the US once their Cascadia, San Andreas and New Madrid fault
zones next adjust (expected soon) as they have built dozens of plants in fault zones.
“Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long
construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation.”
Unless there is an accident and then they pose a threat to all living things downwind for hundreds of years.
‘Accidents’ can be defined in many ways such as human error, seismic activity, tsunami’s (Fukushima),
design flaws (Chernobyl), poor maintenance issues (Three Mile Island), the modern scourge of hackers – or
the provocations of a hostile actor (such as what nearly happened in Ukraine at the Zaporizhzhia facility). In
our current hostile world where we are very close to a full-blown third world war, any country with a nuclear
power plant becomes an easy target for any aggressor who doesn’t even need to possess nuclear weapons of
their own. All they need a is a simple device directed at a plant and a major disaster results. Perhaps nuclear
might have been a reasonable option back in the 60’s but the current hostile and deceptive actors ‘running
things’ now makes nuclear a huge liability. Australia has been smart to avoid this scenario thus far,
regardless of the uranium resources we possess.
“Nuclear energy is used to produce electricity in 31 countries from some 450 nuclear reactors, providing
around 10 per cent of global electricity. Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they
provide reliable, emission free power.”
There is a misguided focus on emissions but the focus is on the WRONG emissions. Carbon is not the
enemy and is needed by all vegetation on the planet. So focusing on nuclear as way to reduce emissions is
irrelevant. This fixation on carbon driven by deleterious wealthy influences overseas that Australia should
NOT be paying attention to is only meant to transfer wealth – not save the planet (you can tax carbon but you
can’t tax the cold or solar output). I recognise that at least some of you have come to acknowledge that the
‘health crisis’ thrust upon us the past two years was a planned deception. Rest assured this AGW is another
distraction and will result not only in wealth transfer but the diminishing of Australia to that of a ‘banana
republic’. Coal has its problems but the emissions that need to be controlled from coal are the dusts and heavy metals that are dispursed such as mercury and arsenic. Are you aware that bioaccumulative fish from
around the supposedly ‘clean’ waters of Qld’s barrier reef are loaded with mercury which would have come
from power plants further down the coast? Until the poor performance problems of renewables can be
solved (if ever), we are safer sticking with coal and focusing our efforts into filtering out the heavy metals
from their exhausts. At least if some foreign actor decides to target them, the plant will be damaged but it
won’t be spreading clouds of radiation throughout the southern hemisphere. (Please note I have not argued
about gas – this is not our saviour either with its high levels of methane leaching, explosive nature and
induced seismicity – refer to current quake swarm in Texas.) While the demand for electricity just continues
to skyrocket (insert electric cars here), we can’t be eliminating the only generators that will produce enough
to satisfy an ever increasing demand.
“Nuclear power is safe.”
Only when all conditions with the facility are perfect and no outside factors interfere with its operation. It
doesn’t take all that much to turn it from stable to meltdown. The more complicated the system, the easier it
is to make it fail. The Three Mile Island meltdown was caused by a faulty relief valve. The explosion of the
NASA Challenger mission was caused by a faulty O-ring (a little ring of rubber on a cylinder).
“Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250
times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land.”
I agree that renewables should NOT be rolled out until the problems they create are fixed. There seems to be
no due diligence being included in the rush to deliberately de-energise our power generation. But incidents
with nuclear radiation can be unfixable. We have not yet invented a means of removing radiation from the
atmosphere.
Also, what you have left out of your speech is the disposal issue. Where is all this radioactive waste
supposed to be disposed of and how is it to be contained so that unforseen factors (earthquakes, hostile
attacks) don’t disturb it? You have focused on the operation only of a nuclear power plant but not the
consequences of accidents and disposal of waste. These need to be part of the evaluation and due diligence.
“The ARPANS Act regulates activities undertaken by Commonwealth entities affecting radiation, to ensure
that the health and safety of people, and the environment, are protected from the harmful effects of
radiation.”
The only way any authority in this country can protect the people and environment from radiation that would
result from a ‘disturbance’ to the plant is to not have nuclear power at all. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions
Paul Keating savages AUKUS nuclear submarine deal as Labor’s worst since conscription in World War 1
ABC, By political correspondent Brett Worthington. 15 Mar 23,
Former prime minister Paul Keating has taken aim at Australia’s AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, calling it the “worst international decision” by a Labor government since conscription in World War I.
Key points:
- The AUKUS deal will see Australia spend up to $368 billion to acquire nuclear-powered submarines
- Mr Keating has dubbed it one of the worst deals in history
- He insists Australia should draw closer to China than to the United States and the United Kingdom
The former Labor leader also offered a scathing assessment of the government’s most senior politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, dubbing Mr Marles and Senator Wong “seriously unwise ministers”.
“This week, Anthony Albanese screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain the United States has laid out to contain China,” Mr Keating said in a written statement issued before he addressed the National Press Club on Wednesday.
“No mealy-mouthed talk of ‘stabilisation’ in our China relationship or resort to softer or polite language will disguise from the Chinese the extent and intent of our commitment to United States’s strategic hegemony in East Asia with all its deadly portents.
“History will be the judge of this project in the end. But I want my name clearly recorded among those who say it is a mistake. Who believes that, despite its enormous cost, it does not offer a solution to the challenge of great power competition in the region or to the security of the Australian people and its continent.”
Mr Keating has been critical of the AUKUS defence pact since it was first struck between the three nations 18 months ago.
Mr Albanese met with US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in California earlier this week, where they finalised a deal for Australia to buy and build nuclear-powered submarines, costing up to $368 billion over three decades.
Australia will eventually build British-designed nuclear-powered submarines with American combat systems.
Before that happens, Australia will buy at least three US nuclear-powered submarines early next decade — boats that might be second-hand and need US Congressional approval.
The Coalition has endorsed the deal.
“For $360 billion, we’re going to get eight submarines. It must be the worst deal in all history,” Mr Keating said………………………………
Mr Keating dismissed China’s growing military as posing a threat to Australia.
“Let me say this: China has not threatened us,” he said.
Mr Keating, who said he spoke for both Labor politicians and grassroots members who felt they could not speak out, said nothing short of a Chinese naval fleet heading for Australia should be considered a threat.
“We wouldn’t need submarines to sink an armada, an armada of Chinese boats and troop ships,” he told the press club. “We’d just do it with planes and missiles.”……………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/paul-keating-anthony-albanese-penny-wong-aukus-nuclear-china/102098142
Susanne Godden – submission to Senate – the principle of “First do no harm”means – don’t produce toxic nuclear waste.
I urge you to leave the ban in
place.
First do no harm”.
There is no safe way to dispose of radioactive waste material as it remains radioactive for up to 100,000 years!
nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and will be too slow to make the
massive rapid changes necessary to deal with the heating climate emergency.
By Susanne Godden 12 December 2022
I am a concerned citizen from Western Australia, writing in defence of the existing ban on
nuclear power in Australia.
The reasons for my current view are:
“First do no harm”.
o There is no safe way to dispose of radioactive waste material as it remains radioactive for up to 100,000 years! The idea of barrels under the ocean, which must corrode after (at most) decades, is laughable. The only attempt at burial deep underground in America failed, with low-level radiationaffec ting people above ground.
o There is an unacceptable risk of accident on-site or during transfer from mine
to port.
o There is an assumption that Australia has lots of remote vacant land to mine uranium from, build nuclear plants on and dispose of unwanted waste, but this fails to consider indigenous people who live on country and retain deep spiritual ties to their ancestral homeland.
o We have limited ability to track nuclear materials. They could be used to make weapons in other countries that may not be our allies. Let’s aim for peace.
o Any nuclear facility could make Australia a military target.
o Please consider the legacies of Hiroshima & Nagasaki 1945, Three Mile Island
1979, Chernobyl 1986 and Fukushima 2011.
Renewable energy is faster and cheaper
o According to global scientists it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions urgently to prevent climate catastrophe.
o Nuclear power infrastructure would take decades to create.
o We have vast quantities of sun and wind to tap into, NOW.
o It does not make sense to start changing our laws to allow nuclear power,
then spend decades building infrastructure, when there is a cheaper and
faster alternative available. The small modular reactors that have been
suggested are not commercially available.
o Workers in the coal and gas industries can be transitioned to renewable
energy jobs for the future; they don’t need jobs in a nuclear industry which
would cause more problems overall.
Unpopular
o Nuclear power is unpopular with most Australians.
In summary, nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and will be too slow to make the
massive rapid changes necessary to deal with the heating climate emergency.
I understand there is currently an energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and increasing
energy prices, especially on the east coast of Australia, but I urge you to leave the ban in
place. Instead, we can reserve some energy supplies for locals once existing contracts end
and invest in renewable energy backed by battery technology. energy https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 