Submission for the public good – to Senate Inquiry on nuclear waste dump selection
Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics “Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia “
My name is Noel Wauchope. I am a former school teacher, having taught science in secondary schools. I have a long term interest in nuclear issues. I would say that I am a generalist, rather than a specialist in a scientific field. I believe that this generalist approach is an advantage in examining and communicating about a nuclear waste dump proposal. All too often, even very well educated people are intimidated by the technical jargon of experts on nuclear technology, and thus become reluctant to form their own opinion.
I note the specific terms of reference that we are encouraged to address, and I deplore the fact that they, and the title of this Inquiry, are already begging the question – by stating “in South Australia”.
Already we are all supposed to accept without question the proposition that South Australia is the location for the federal nuclear waste dump – done and dusted!
SUMMARY
My main concern is in addressing b the concept of “broad community support”. The Inquiry ‘s brief for this appears to be confined to the Kimba and Hawker people. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility at Kimba or Hawker will involve transport of radioactive wastes through the region, and will have ramifications for its economy, agriculture and tourism. The local communities have not been properly informed, and pretty well brain-washed with the myth that the nuclear waste dump is a “medical necessity”. The nature of the wastes, lumping together Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) and Low Level Wastes (LLW) is a messy and confusing plan, and its real meaning has not been explained to them. The safety problems with waste canisters have not been discussed. These local communities are not aware of their future in hosting “stranded wastes” – as there is no existing plan for the permanent burial of the very long lasting ILW wastes.
c The involvement of indigenous people by the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been inadequate, and the idea that they support the plan is simply not believable, in view of the poor survey practices carried out, and the clear opposition of leading Aboriginal organisations.
e Eyre Peninsular , state-wide and nation-wide community views should be considered.
f Related matters include South Australia’s law prohibiting nuclear waste facilities, best practice for managing nuclear wastes, publicity and media coverage, and a responsible approach to radioactive waste management, and Australia- wide decision-making. Continue reading
South Australia’s new Liberal Premier Marshall backs nuclear waste dump, despite community discord
SA Government indicates support for nuclear waste dump as communities remain split about proposal http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-23/sa-gov-backs-nuclear-waste-dump-amid-community-tensions/9262948
New Premier Steven Marshall made the comments this week after his cabinet was sworn in at Government House.
“That’s a federal issue. We need to be assured the host community is satisfied with that,” Mr Marshall said.
“The Labor Party has held the same position that we have.”
The Federal Government is looking to store low-level nuclear waste and temporarily store intermediate level waste at one of two locations near Kimba, or one at Barndioota, near Hawker, in the Flinders Ranges.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) held informal community consultations in both towns this week.
ARPANSA is the independent federal agency that would assess any application made by the Federal Government for a nuclear waste repository.
The ABC understands the Federal Government wants to make a decision on the location of the nuclear waste facility before the end of the year.
Kimba community split over proposal
Kimba local Audrey Lienert opposes the facility, but attended the ARPANSA session to gain further information about the process.
“It has split the community terribly,” Mrs Lienert said.
She said there was a common concern among those who did not support the facility at Kimba.
“If the word gets out that we’ve got nuclear here in our farming land, what [will] our market be overseas, and what will that do to our prices?”
But not all locals are against the proposal.
Lifelong Kimba farmer Trevor Cliff said the economic benefits could not be overstated for the small farming community of 600.
“Every country town is struggling with numbers. It’s hard to attract industry,” Mr Cliff said.
“To me, it’s something that can help the town employment-wise.”
He is convinced the facility and the transport of nuclear waste will be safe.
“I’m very happy to accommodate it here. I have no fear of the actual product.
“It’s well-contained, well before it gets to Kimba.”
He admitted the issue had been contentious, but disputed the town had been split.
“One of my best mates, he’s trapped on the no side and we talk about it,” Mr Cliff said.
“He can have his side, and I say my side — that’s democracy for you.”
Hawker locals battle over culture and economic growth
The Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG) comprises members who are against the facility being built in the Flinders Ranges.
FLAG member Greg Bannon said the group was strongly opposed to the potential Wallerberdina Station site near Hawker.
“That stretch of land between Lake Torrens and the ranges is totally unsuitable for something that will have to be managed for at least 300 years,” Mr Bannon said.
He pointed to further concerns from local traditional owners, the Adnyamathanha people, and regular seismic activity in the region as more evidence the site was poorly suited.
But Barndioota Economic Working Group chairman Malcom McKenzie said the potential for jobs could not be understated.
“If everything’s all safe to do I’m for that facility to go ahead because I want to see jobs for that region,” he said.
“I want to see opportunities for Aboriginal people and for the people of the area. And it’s a great opportunity I think we’re going to proceed with.”
ARPANSA’s role ‘informal’ for the momentARPANSA chief executive Carl-Magnus Larsson said the organisation would assess any application carefully.
“A facility will not go ahead unless we’re convinced it can go ahead and that protection of health and safety of people is taken care of,” Dr Larsson said.
He stressed recent meetings between the communities and ARPANSA had been informal because no official application had been lodged by the Federal Government.
He said if the agency were to receive an application, it could take between six and 12 months to decide whether to grant a licence for the facility.
A federal Senate inquiry into the process of site selection is ongoing, with submissions closing on April 3.
The findings of the inquiry are due in August.
Leave Lucas Heights nuclear waste AT Lucas Heights – Mark Parnell
Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 20 Mar 18, “The real game here is Lucas Height’s nuclear waste. …. It’s been at Lucas Heights for decades, it can stay there. We don’t need to move it to South Australia” At least one of our politicians “gets it”. Marc Parnell on ABC radio yesterday. I know many people here don’t like the Greens. For those people, listen to the video below (last 2 minutes), write down his words and then send them to your favourite Labor/Liberal politician until they “get it” too. https://www.facebook.com/abcadelaide/videos/10160320509745604/
Steve Dale Here ya go, I transcribed what he said –
“Rather than looking for a site, we need to go back to first principles and say “what waste are we talking about?”, “where is it currently stored?”, “and is there a pressing reason to move it somewhere else?”. Now people talk about medical waste and hospital waste most of that ends up in landfill because it is very short lived radioactive isotopes.
The real game here is Lucas Height’s nuclear waste – and the Green’s position here is that it’s been at Lucas Heights for decades, it can stay there. We don’t need to move it to South Australia” ABC Adelaide was live. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Minerals Council of Australia wants nuclear technology to be government funded as “clean and green”
Miners want govt funds for nuclear, coal, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/miners-want-govt-funds-for-nuclear-coal, 20 Mar 18, -Australia’s mining sector wants the commonwealth’s green bank to help pay for nuclear and new-technology coal power along with other low-emissions power sources.
The Minerals Council of Australia says the Turnbull government’s new energy policy will only achieve its objectives of delivering reliable, affordable power with low emissions and without subsidies or taxes if it takes a truly technology-neutral approach.
Its submission on the national energy guarantee says current wholesale electricity prices are unsustainable for the mining sectors.
“Further increases would force mining companies to look elsewhere to invest and create jobs, and hurt families already struggling to pay their bills,” the council’s interim chief executive David Byers warned when making the submission public on Tuesday.
The council wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to be allowed to address gaps in financing for all new low emissions generation.
But Labor senator Doug Cameron, who worked as a maintenance fitter at Liddell Power Station for seven years, said there was no such thing as clean coal. “It’s a nonsense being put forward by the apologists who don’t support renewable energy,” Senator Cameron told reporters in Canberra.
“Renewable energy is how this country will grow in the future and create more jobs.”
At the moment the CEFC is explicitly banned from investing in nuclear or carbon capture and storage technology, although the government is trying to persuade parliament to lift the latter restriction.
Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm said anyone who believed carbon emissions were too high had to take nuclear power seriously.
But he was no fan of using the CEFC to do so.
The MCA’s submission also raises its concerns about how the proposed reliability and emissions guarantees in the new energy policy will work in practice.
“Of particular concern is whether this contractually-based system will lead to a greater concentration of market power within the power sector, putting at risk the expected outcomes of the guarantee,” it says.
South Australian Premier Stephen Marshall carrying out the Liberal agenda – Cuts Access To Solar Batteries For Low Income Households.
SA’s New Premier Cuts Access To Solar Batteries For Low Income Households. Gizmodo, Hayley Williams Mar 19, 2018
Protect South Australia from Nuclear Trash – the fight continues – theme for March 18
The South Australian election result by no means is a triumph for the nuclear lobby. The politicians and media managed to side-step the vital issue of nuclear waste dumping – so the public at large seemed unaware of this issue. South Australians have historically fought back, and won, against this nuclear threat, when they were clearly confronted with it.
South Australia now has a Premier Stephen Marshall, who says that he will destroy the Tesla big battery scheme, leading a Liberal government that no doubt would like to carry out the mission of the Federal Liberal government – to stop the transition to renewable energy.
Sorry, Mr Marshall and Mr Turnbull, but that horse has already bolted away. The nuclear and coal lobbies are not going to stop the global movement towards clean energy, with places like South Australia and Australian capital Territory (ACT) in a leadership position.
As for the fraudulent claim that Kimba, South Australia must host nuclear trash as a “medical necessity”- South Australia, and all Australians will see through this, when they properly get the facts.
It is up to Australian who care – to expose the lies, and to explain the unwisdom of toting the Lucas Heights toxic radioactive trash for 1700 km to Kimba. Also the mysterious and mingled radioactive trash at Woomera should stay where it is – and not pollute the Kimba agricultural region.
South Australia’s new Premier vows to kill the Tesla battery storage plan
Marshall’s first promise as SA premier: Kill Tesla battery plan http://reneweconomy.com.au/marshalls-first-promise-as-sa-premier-kill-tesla-battery-plan-68601/ By Giles Parkinson on 19 March 2018
The newly elected South Australia premier, the Liberal Steven Marshall, has made his first promise – his government intends to kill the Tesla plan for the world’s biggest “virtual power plant” that would install batteries in low income households for no cost.
The Tesla plan – which aimed to install 5kW of solar and a 13.5kWh Tesla Powerwall 2 battery storage unit in 50,000 homes – would have created a virtual power plant with 250MW of capacity and 650MWh of storage.
The Tesla plan was announced just before the official start of the election campaign. The first two stages of the proposal – for 1,100 Housing Trust homes – is apparently locked in with a $2 million grant and a $30 million loan, but the broader third phase is not yet set in stone.
“No, that’s not part of our agenda,” Marshall told ABC’s Radio National breakfast program, just minutes before being sworn in as premier.
Instead, Marshall said his government would proceed with his previously announced commitment to a $100 million subsidy to 40,000 homes, where he would offer $2,500 for each battery storage unit installed.
“(Former premier Jay Weatherill) was doing it for Housing Trust homes in South Australia … that’s not part of our plan. What we are going to do is provide a subsidy to get (those with) solar rooftops systems with some storage capacity.”
Marshall’s plans would, of course, be very difficult to access for low-income households because it would still require an upfront capital payments that they would likely be unable to afford. And they do not already have rooftop solar.
It’s an extraordinary start for the new Liberal government – promising to ditch a private initiative that would provide loans to low-income households in favour of a $100 million government subsidy that would be out of reach of those households most in need of it.
So much for free markets. But it also raises the issue of sovereign risk.
If the Liberal Party is to do back-flips on initiatives like this, will it also renege on the other contracts entered into by Labor’s Renewable Technology Fund – and there are many of those, for larger-scale storage developments, and for a variety of smaller and micro-grid proposals.
It could be that the Tesla virtual power plant could go ahead, seeing that it is privately funded and requires a retailer to be chosen to help roll out the scheme and act as an intermediary.
The idea was to install the solar and battery storage for free, and deliver a reduction of around one-third in the electricity bills of 25,000 Housing Trust homes, and another 25,000 private low-income households. Investors would provide the capital.
However, given the new government’s antipathy to the scheme, it is entirely possible the tender process may be delayed and the private investors would not want to go ahead in such a hostile political environment.
It could also have an impact on Australia’s only solar manufacturer, Tindo Solar, which was looking to significantly increase its production capacity at its Adelaide manufacturing plant, and hire more employees, of course.
That’s because the Tesla plan would require half of the solar capacity to come from local manufacturers. It was also seen as an excellent platform for a new retailer to enter the South Australian market. The lack of competition in South Australia is one of the principal reasons for its high electricity prices.
The irony is that Marshall admitted he could see the benefits of battery storage – both at utility level and in households.
But he re-iterated his intent to scrap the state’s renewable energy target, because it would push up prices – even though the amount of projects under construction and promised by the new owner of the Whyalla steelworks would likely take the stake to Weatherill’s 75 per cent target, probably several years earlier.
Marshall also plans a new interconnector to NSW. Marshall says this will add to the “affordable reliable baseload” the state could access “when it’s not windy or sunny” in South Australia.
But appears to ignore the fact that NSW is already the state with the highest dependence on imports, even more than South Australia and may not been a position to export power to anyone.
But he also said the interconnector would allow for the “excess renewables” from South Australia to be exported to other states, “lowering prices across the entire nation.”
Hang on, didn’t you just say that the investment in renewables would push prices up? You can’t have it both ways.
Update: Marshall later told a news conference he would not rescind contacts entered into by previous government. This however protects only the first two stages of the Tesla virtual power plant, affecting 1,100 households. The third phase, involving 49,000 other low income households, was not subject to a signed contract, RenewEconomy understands, because it would source private funding.
Can Stephen Marshall stop South Australia’s transition to clean energy? Probably not
Speed of Australia’s energy transition hostage to Marshall law http://reneweconomy.com.au/speed-of-australias-energy-transition-hostage-to-marshall-law-65325/By Giles Parkinson on 19 March 2018
The consequences of South Australia’s election result on Saturday will be felt far beyond the state’s borders.
It was barely minutes after the SA Liberals – led by Steven Marshall – were declared winners that the federal Coalition began crowing that this was good news for Malcolm Turnbull’s signature policy, the National Energy Guarantee.
Senator Simon Birmingham said so almost immediately on ABC News 24, and the level of expectation that Marshall should serve as a vassal of the federal Coalition’s policy objectives was repeated by Turnbull, energy minister Josh Frydenberg and finance minister Matthias Cormann.
It seems unlikely that the NEG, or even Marshall, could do much to slow down the pace of the transition in South Australia, for reasons I will explain below. Continue reading
South Australia rejects the nuclear industry – as shown in poor vote for Cory ‘s Australian Conservatives
Zac Eagle 18 Mar 18, Australian Conservatives with their “All Nuclear” policy managed to get about 3% of the vote in the South Australian state election. Overwhelming rejection of nuclear industry. Bravo SA
Nuclear waste dump for South Australia? Deafening silence by politicians and journalists
MOSS, No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
16 Mar 18 You could be forgiven for thinking that even the journalists are too afraid to ask this question, the silence has been deafening.
“What is each party’s position when it comes to defending the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000?”
The single most important issue in the history of South Australia, as it has significant impact on our future generations, has been ignored by all parties as an election issue. South Australia has a law prohibiting the development of a nuclear waste dump, yet the Federal Government is currently making plans to override it and build a nuclear waste facility in the heart of our prime farming land in Kimba, South Australia and also the Flinders Ranges only 40km from Wilpena Pound. Which party will uphold this law and why hasn’t any party put it on the agenda for this election. Please don’t suggest it’s a Federal issue, because it’s not. A nuclear waste dump for South Australia is breaking one of our own existing laws so it is very much a State Government issue.
We heard Nick Xenophon, Steven Marshall and Jay Weatherill on the ABC Adelaidethis morning and thought some hard hitting questions would be asked but instead heard a continuation of the “Cat Fight” we have been hearing for some time now. I’m thinking we need another Laurie Oaks.
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000
We kindly ask that you please share this post to assist broader support.
7 News Adelaide 9 News Adelaide Ten Eyewitness News Adelaide A Current Affair 60 Minutes Australia Wilpena Pound Resort – Flinders Ranges, SA No Dump Alliance No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges Nuclear Free Adelaide – No Nukes HereFlinders Local Action Group: FLAG, Dr Helen Caldicott
South Australia’s renewable energy future hanging by a thread
http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-renewable-energy-
future-hanging-thread-81721/ By Giles Parkinson on 15 March 2018
It’s an election that is impossible to call. And too important to ignore.
Just two days out from the South Australia state poll, the result is in the balance, and so too is the fate of South Australia’s status as a world leader in renewable energy. It’s an outcome that could have a huge bearing on the pace of the energy transition for the whole of the country.
It was supposed to be a three-horse race between Labor – facing the monumental task of trying to secure a fifth consecutive term after 16 years in power – the SA Liberals, and Nick Xenophon’s newly formed SA Best.
Xenophon – hugely popular three months ago – has slipped back in the polls, but his party could still be kingmaker early next week, choosing to support a minority government of either Labor or the Liberals, based on the number of seats, votes, or some other criteria.
For what it’s worth, SportsBet is favouring a Labor victory, saying the odds have come in at $1.78 from $2.30), compared to the Liberals ($2.10, out from $1.57) and SA Best ($16, out from $6.50). The best odds are for a hung parliament ($1.33, in from $1.45).
More relevant, perhaps, is the assessment of ABC election analyst Anthony Green, who says that due to a redistribution of seats since the 2014 poll, the Liberals are already sitting on a notional majority of 24 seats.
That means Labor would need a 3 per cent swing in its favour, not counting the influence of SA Best, to displace them. On local radio on Thursday morning, the local pundits weren’t seeing it – putting Labor at 18-19 seats, well short of the 24 they will need to govern in their own account.
This is a troubling prospect for the clean energy industry, and for those who want to see South Australia continue its world-leading transition to a renewables-based economy, and to set an example for the rest of the country.
If renewables were to be the deciding factor in this election, then Labor would be a shoe-in.
Renewables – despite the repeated attempts to demonise wind and solar – remain hugely popular, even among Liberal voters. But Labor is the only party to fully articulate how it sees the state’s energy future unfolding, and how it will manage it.
Premier Jay Weatherill has outlined a 75 per cent renewable energy target for 2025, along with a 25 per cent “renewable storage” target, and has made it clear that he will not be cowed by the right-wing bully boys in Canberra, or the coal lobby. He has set the state’s own agenda and is sticking to it.
His policy is to focus on embracing this energy transition with world-leading and world-biggest initiatives such as the Tesla big battery, the world’s biggest solar tower at Port Augusta, the world’s biggest “virtual power plant”, and the biggest wind and solar-powered hydrogen electrolyser, among a host of other projects.
Crucially, this renewables vision is backed up by the actions of business people like Sanjeev Gupta, who says the future of manufacturing and other energy intensive industries depend on cheap green energy, and Germany’s sonnen, which intends to build a battery storage manufacturing plant in Australia.
The Liberals, on the other hand, are all over the shop. Their campaign – much of it based around the sort of conservative myths we outline here – has already been censured by the SA electoral commission, which accuses them of being “inaccurate and misleading.”
The Liberals issued a fleeting and begrudging apology over its claim of huge bill reductions. (Most of the reductions will be delivered by Labor’s in-place policies). But if the Liberals win, the energy industry is not sure what to expect, apart from more myth making.
The Liberals policy document constantly refers to out-dated solutions such as “baseload”, without ever explaining what that might be: in South Australia, that cannot mean coal, nor should it mean expensive gas.
They vow to scrap the state-based target, and they declare support for the federal Coalition’s National Energy Guarantee, despite fears it would worsen South Australia’s principal problem – the lack of competition and the resultant high prices.
The inconsistency of the Liberals position is perhaps best summed up by the blogger Ronald Brakels, who noted in this piece on SolarQuotes:
- They (the Liberals) blame Labor for not having enough back up power but are against the state-owned power plant that provides back up power.
- They say they support free market policies but blame Labor for not interfering in the market to prevent a private company from closing a coal power station.
- The (Liberal policy) document claims the SA grid is unreliable but also says the state-owned power plant is a waste of money because the grid is so reliable it will only get used an average of once every 10 years.
- They have nothing good to say about Labor, but many policies they say they will follow are similar to what Labor is doing.
It is this last point that is most salient to the industry.
The state – with the projects under construction – is already committed to well in excess of 50 per cent renewables. It is the lack of vision, and the sort of mindless opposition to new technologies that pervades their federal counterparts, that scares participants the most.
The Liberals don’t support a state-based target, but Marshall himself has admitted that reaching 75 per cent by 2025 is certainly achievable.
In fact, apart from deliberately blocking the likes of Gupta from building huge solar plants to protect the future of industries like the Whyalla steel works, it’s hard to see how South Australia could fail to meet that target.
The Australian Energy Market Operator, for instance, says that S.A. could reach 73 per cent renewables by 2020/21, and doesn’t seem concerned about being able to manage this, talking enthusiastically of the new technologies like the Tesla big battery.
But stopping people from reaching targets is what the Coalition has proved adept at doing.
The national RET effectively came to a halt for three years – a major cause for the recent price spikes on the wholesale market – as the Coalition looked to trash the scheme altogether. And the NEG appears to be designed with the intent to stifle wind and solar projects over the next decade.
Ominously, the SA Liberals talk of requiring solar and wind developers to provide “market impact” studies for renewable projects.
The Liberals openly agree with Labor only on their support for the proposed solar tower and molten salt storage project in South Australia (it’s in the electorate of the Liberals energy spokesman, Dan van Holst Pellekaan), and on delivering battery storage for households.
The Liberals target 40,000 households in a means-tested grant program offering $2,500 for each installation, while Labor targets 60,000 households in two different schemes targeting low-income households with zero upfront payments.
Liberals wants an interconnector to NSW to be built soon, Labor is happy to wait. The Liberals don’t seem to have a plan of what to do with excess wind and solar capacity.
Labor is looking at battery storage and pumped hydro, and its Renewable Technology Fund has probably already locked in about 400MW of storage capacity. It is also looking to see if hydrogen can deliver the promise of green energy exports.
As for the others, Xenophon’s SA Best remains vague on its details, and how to manage this energy transition, but it accepts that it is inevitable, and that 90 per cent renewables by 2030 is possible,although not a target.
The Greens want to go the whole hog, to 100 per cent by 2025, but do not appear to have much traction in this poll. Cory Bernardi’s Conservatives propose the usual right-wing nonsense – wanting to build a 1GW coal plant and create a nuclear waste dump.
So, what does the renewable and storage industry want? Without doubt, another Weatherill government.
Liberals leader Steve Marshall and energy spokesman Pellekaan, a former BP executive, have railed long and hard against wind. Pellekaan himself blamed it for power surges that caused outages, and has echoed federal resource minister Matt Canavan’s call for the Northern coal generator to be re-opened.
Labor has mis-stepped – its energy security target was misguided, but it had the sense to dump it; it probably didn’t need to buy the emergency back-up diesel generators when a lease might have been better value; and its pro-gas drilling agenda is troubling for many.
But Weatherill’s vision is clear.
“People are proud of our leadership on renewable energy,” he noted in the recent interview in the popular Energy Insiders podcast. Even people who are not completely convinced about climate change believe that renewables are the technologies of the future.”
But he’s not getting much support in the mainstream media. The Murdoch press, dominant in South Australia, firmly supports the Liberals. Even the Guardian, in its main electoral wrap – slugged “It’s time for change” when first published – ignored the energy issue.
But Weatherill’s fear is that if Labor loses, it will be termed as a defeat for renewables, and an excuse to wind back policies.
“What will happen, should we not be successful, the opponents of renewable energy will say South Australia’s leadership in renewable energy was the cause of their demise. That will be used against any other government that wants to push deeply into renewable energy.”
And that’s a prospect that makes you feel ill.
The new Trans Pacific Partenership (TPP) just as bad for Australia as the old one
“The deal still includes special rights for foreign investors to bypass national courts and sue governments for millions of dollars in unfair international tribunals over changes to domestic laws, known as ISDS*,” said Dr Ranald.
Dr Patricia Ranald on the TPP
TPP-11: The same dud deal for most Australians as TPP-12https://www.michaelwest.com.au/tpp-11-the-same-dud-deal-for-most-australians-as-tpp-12/ by Sandi Keane | Mar 13, 2018
Bill Shorten – so weak and wishy-washy on Adani coal megamine project
Bill Shorten’s stance on Adani coalmine leaves voters cold – Guardian Essential poll
Highest level of support was for Greens’ anti-Adani position with Turnbull government’s position second
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/13/bill-shortens-stance-on-adani-coalmine-leaves-voters-cold-guardian-essential-poll
Bill Shorten Waffles About Adani Because Labor Is In The Pocket Of Big Coal
Michael Brull
The ALP’s ‘on-again off-again’ position on the Carmichael mega-mine is entirely consistent with the party’s recent history
https://newmatilda.com/2018/03/12/bill-shorten-waffles-adani-labor-pocket-big-coal/
Michael Brull
The ALP’s ‘on-again off-again’ position on the Carmichael mega-mine is entirely consistent with the party’s recent history
https://newmatilda.com/2018/03/12/bill-shorten-waffles-adani-labor-pocket-big-coal/
Which South Australian parties have the guts to say NO to the Federal nuclear waste dump plan? – theme for March 18
Is there some reason why the greedy nuclear lobby, the secretive agency ANSTO, and the weak Australian government all seem to think that it’s OK to transport nuclear reactor trash for thousands of km across the land, and dump it on agricultural land in South Australia?
Is it because they’ve decided that South Australia is already radioactively trashed, because the Australian government allowed the British to test 12 major nuclear weapons and hundreds of “minor” ones on Maralinga, S.A.?
It is some sort of weird payback because this State never had convicts dumped on them – so the dominant Eastern States want to put the South Australians in their place?
South Australia is a beautiful place. It has never generated nuclear trash. Let the nuclear trash be kept, (as international conventions and best practice dictate) near to the point of production – AT LUCAS HEIGHTS in Sydney. And then let Australia come to its senses and stop making the foul stuff.
This is NOT a “Kimba” issue, not just a regional issue, – it’s certainly a STATE issue, and a NATIONAL issue.
Aware citizens in Australia are waiting to see if the South Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party, SA Best Party have the guts to join the Greens in saying NO to the Federal nuclear waste dump plan.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 