Australia’s Attorney General Brandis intervenes in W and J court action against Adani
Traditional Owners fighting Adani appalled at improper political interference http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/brandis-intervenes-in-indigenous-court-action-against-adani/
“The Attorney General, George Brandis, has intervened in a Federal Court hearing in which the Traditional Owners fighting Adani’s proposed coal mine are seeking to strike out a fake agreement Adani claims to have for the mine to proceed.
“Senator Brandis’ intervention follows his second failure to rush through changes to the Native Title Act….
“Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J)Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, said,
““The Attorney General has made an extraordinary and political intervention in matters before the court. Intervening in our case shows Brandis is working in billionaire Adani’s interests, not ensuring the proper administration of justice. Again, Brandis is making Native Title all about Adani’s mine instead of good law reform. …
“Youth spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, MsMurrawah Johnson, said,
““Adani didn’t negotiate and achieve the free prior informed consent of the W&J people. The meeting, which Adani and its barrackers claim achieved consent, with a 294 to 1 vote, is as fake as its ILUA.
It is not a true expression of the W&J Traditional Owners.
““Over 220 of the attendees at Adani’s meeting are people who have never been involved in the W&J claim or decision making, and who are identified with other nations and claims, or didn’t identify an apical descent line. …
“Lawyer for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Mr Colin Hardie, said,
“My clients have four strong grounds against Adani’s purported ILUA. …
ANSTO must be transparent on costs of its nuclear research: Generation IV nuclear reactors – high cost for little benefit
Here’s another fine submission to Australia’s Parliamentary Inquiry into Australia joining the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems . This one blows out of the water any idea that these so far non existent reactors could solve any nuclear waste problem, or be in any way economically viable. It also throws the spotlight on The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Just how much of tax-payers’ money is going to this secretive organisation?
The latest reason for generation IV reactors centres on the unsolved problem of how to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel. The proposition is that plutonium and other long lived transuranics in reactor fuel (that like plutonium also create a disposal problem) could be used up in so called “burner” reactors.
Analysis by the US National Academy of Sciences found this proposal to have such very high cost and so little benefit that it would take hundreds of years of recycling to reduce most of the global inventory.
Should ANSTO propose collaboration can occur without further cost to the taxpayer, then a funding review should be conducted to establish what research is already being done by ANSTO, at what cost, for what purpose and at whose behest. With an average loss of A$200 million annually, ANSTO should be able to provide disaggregated accounts for both transparency and accountability.
Generation IV Nuclear Energy – Accession Submission Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) PO Box 1379, Carlton VIC 3053 Australia (03) 9023 195 m. 0431 475 465 e. eo@mapw.org.au w. http://www.mapw.org.au
Executive Summary
MAPW recommends strongly against Australia becoming a party to this agreement. There is no proposal for Australia to get a nuclear power program.
This framework agreement applies to technologies that are economically, socially, environmentally, and from a nuclear security perspective, very dubious. Generation IV reactors are an assortment of proposed technologies that have been put forward over the last 70 years, tried and failed.
ANSTO is already very heavily subsidised by the Australian government, and extending its operations into this research sphere will require further scientific effort, expertise and funding. This is highly inappropriate given the current major constraints on government spending, and the urgent need to focus research energies on realistic, financially viable and proven measures to contain emissions from electricity generation.
Collaboration would mean taxpayer subsidies would go to an industry which has already wasted many billions in public funds and resulted in major adverse legacies. No private industry is prepared to invest in this research without large government subsidies because none are prepared to lose so much money.
It is also clear that Australia has no policy to use these long promised and never commercially delivered reactors. Therefore any involvement just subsidises those who hope to use them. If Australia wishes to expand its nuclear expertise, then research into “non nuclear waste” generating technologies (such as those to produce medical isotopes) would be much more productive and also be of positive benefit to the Australian population.
Background
Objectives of GIF Framework Agreement Continue reading
Compelling argument against Australia joining the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
Today, I am taking the unusual step of publishing an entire submission. That’s because it is so good. The nuclear lobby pulled a swifty on Australians, by having government and media very quietly do what is sure to be a “rubber stamp” job on Australia joining up to the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
They allowed a very short time for submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. The nuke lobby must have been in the know, as they put in 11, whereas there were only 3, (one mine) critical of the plan.
Fortunately the critical ones contain compelling information. So, here, in full, is the:
Submission from Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation .
Contacts:
• Jim Green (Friends of the Earth, Australia) jim.green@foe.org.au, 0417 318 368
• Dave Sweeney (Australian Conservation Foundation) dave.sweeney@acf.org.au, 0408 317 812
Contents
1. Introduction and Response to National Interest Analysis
2. Generation IV Reactor Concepts ‒ Introduction
3. Decades Away
4. Purported Benefits
5. French Government’s IRSN Report
6. US Government Accountability Office Report
7. The Slow Death of Fast Reactors
8. Integral Fast Reactors
9. Thorium 10. Small Modular Reactors 11. Fusion Scientist Debunks Fusion
- INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INTEREST ANALYSIS Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation welcome the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry and would welcome the opportunity to appear before a hearing of the Committee.
The Committee will likely receive submissions promoting the construction of Generation IV reactors in Australia and it is therefore worth noting comments by the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in its May 2016 Final Report: “[A]dvanced fast reactors and other innovative reactor designs are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future. The development of such a first-of-a-kind project in South Australia would have high commercial and technical risk. Although prototype and demonstration reactors are operating, there is no licensed, commercially proven design. Development to that point would require substantial capital investment. Moreover, electricity generated from such reactors has not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with current light water reactor designs.”1
Here we provide brief responses to a number of comments in the National Interest Analysis (NIA).2
The NIA asserts that participation in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) will further Australia’s non-proliferation and nuclear safety objectives. No evidence is supplied to justify the tenuous assertion. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further non-proliferation objectives, e.g. a ban on reprocessing Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials (AONM); a reversal of the decision to permit uranium sales to countries that have not signed or ratified the NPT; or refusing uranium sales to countries that refuse to sign or ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further safety objectives, e.g. revisiting the decision to sell uranium to Ukraine in light of the ongoing conflict in that country, refusing to supply uranium to nuclear weapon states that are not fulfilling their NPT obligations, insisting that uranium customer countries establish a strong, independent regulatory regime (as opposed to the inadequate regulation in a number of customer countries, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others).
Nuclear non-proliferation would also be far better realised by active Australian engagement in the current UN process around the development of a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Instead Australia has spurned this pivotally important initiative and is refusing to participate. If Australia is serious about its international standing, our representatives would be at the table in New York.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF will help Australia maintain its permanent position on the IAEA’s 35-member Board of Governors. ANSTO routinely makes such arguments ‒ in support of the construction of the OPAL reactor, in support of the development of nuclear power in Australia, and now in support of Australian participation in GIF. Australia has held a permanent position on the IAEA’s Board of Governors for decades and there is no reason to believe that participation or non-participation in GIF will change that situation.
The NIA asserts that accession to the Agreement and participation in GIF will have important economic benefits. No evidence is supplied to justify that tenuous assertion. There are no demonstrated economic benefits from participation in GIF ‒ however there are clear costs.
The NIA states that the “costs of participation in the System Arrangements will be borne by ANSTO from existing funds.” ANSTO should be required to provide a detailed account of past expenditure relating to this Agreement and anticipated future expenditure.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF “will improve the Australian Government’s awareness and understanding of nuclear energy developments throughout the region and around the world, and contribute to the ability of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to continue to provide timely and comprehensive advice on nuclear issues.” Those arguments are tenuous, especially given that little about GIF is secret.
The NIA states that “Generation IV designs will use fuel more efficiently, reduce waste production, be economically competitive, and meet stringent standards of safety and proliferation resistance.” Those false claims are rebuked in later sections of this submission.
The NIA states that the success of Australia’s bid for membership of GIF was based in part on ANSTO’s “world-class capabilities and expertise” in the “development of nuclear safety cases.” ANSTO should be asked to justify that assertion. ANSTO could also be asked whether, based on its “world-class” expertise in nuclear safety, whether it considers it is appropriate for Australia to sell uranium to countries with demonstrably inadequate nuclear regulatory regimes, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others.
The NIA asserts that “a significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway or under consideration by a number of countries, including several in the Asia Pacific region.” In fact:
- Globally, nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 20 years.
- For the foreseeable future, there is zero likelihood of a “significant” nuclear expansion of nuclear power and there will be an overall decline unless growth in China matches the decline elsewhere. Declines can be predicted with great confidence in North America, across all EU countries combined, in Japan, and in numerous other countries and regions ‒ and a very large majority of the world’s countries (about five out of six) are nuclear-free and plan to stay that way.
- No country in the Asia Pacific or South East Asia is seriously planning to introduce nuclear power. The only country that was seriously planning to introduce nuclear power in the region ‒ Vietnam ‒ abandoned those plans last year.
The NIA states that Australia’s participation in GIF falls within the existing functions of ANSTO under Section 5 of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties should assess whether Australia’s participation in GIF is consistent with legislation banning nuclear power in Australia (the EPBC and ARPANS Acts). 2.
2. GENERATION IV REACTOR CONCEPTS ‒ INTRODUCTION Continue reading
The continued push for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Australia
The Parliamentary Committee Inquiry on Australia joining the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems has now published the submissions that it received.
As this Inquiry has been kept quite secret from the media and the public, it is not surprising that nearly all of the submissions have come from companies and individuals with either a very clear, or a vested, interest in the nuclear industry.
For the moment, I will just single out one that particularly interested me. This is from SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd . They don’t actually have much to say about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, but just go on to fulsome praise of Generation IV nuclear reactors in general, and of ANSTO.:
“…….SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd is an independent Australian specialist consultancy established to advise on the siting, development and operation of safe nuclear power generation technologies, principally Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Two of SMR-NT’s directors were senior managers at ANSTO and have a good understanding of the facilities and capabilities of ANSTO…..
SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd most warmly supports Australia acceding to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems as extended by the Agreement extending the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” more http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearEnergy/Submissions
SMR Nuclear Technologies sounds pretty much like ANSTO in disguise.
They dropped a little hint of what ANSTO is up to, in their previous, (rather weak and contradictory) submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, in which they stated: “Thorium is now being revisited, particularly in China. Australia (ANSTO) is assisting with this work” – http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/03/SMR-Nuclear-Technology-Pty-Ltd-30-07-2015.pdf
We didn’t know that the Australian tax-payer was funding thorium nuclear reactor development in China, did we?
What is driving the nuclear industry to dump its nuclear waste in South Australia
By Annie McGovern. 23rd April 2017 (this is an extract from the Adelaide Forum held very recently, to discuss this question) “….ENDNOTE These observations have been gleaned from a fairly 
random search for relevant information which was also confined by the time available to process and present these findings. These are offered at this time as an additional body of information that may help fill some of the gaps in the thrust to force further nuclear energy production and waste disposal on the people of S. A.
Amongst the many recommendations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission there were 3 major points which raise concerns regarding the possible imminent changes to Legislation in S.A. The Royal Commission has urged the State Government to fast-track these Legislative changes, even though there are no current viable plans for any nuclear industry developments in S.A. at this time.
- Modification of the State Waste Dump Prohibition Laws. This Legislation was almost immediately amended following presentation of the Royal Commission’s findings, to allow Government spending on proposals for the Waste Dumps. The further question of approval of nuclear waste dumps in S.A. was put to the Labour State Conference and became a stalemate to which no decision could be made. Progress of changes to Legislation on this proposal was interrupted.
- Legislation that would allow contracts of Uranium sales to be tied to obligations on S.A. taking back the resultant waste. The Royal Commission sees this possibility as an enhancement to capture sales of Uranium, despite there being no approval for waste disposal in S. A. at this time, and, the fact that no such facility would be capable of fulfilling the contract until well into the future. The Royal Commission appears to be determined to place the people of S.A. into an intractable situation where industry is forcing obligation through contractual arrangements. However, a caveat might be placed on such contracts that are not plausible…an explicit caveat and the risk is borne by the signing parties. A letter of advice is provided to the signatory and the Annual AGM of companies involved informed of this unethical business practice.
- Legislative changes to allow Nuclear Power production. Despite there being no overt plans for these developments within the foreseeable future, the Royal Commission is encouraging making changes now for future development. The absence of a ready nuclear waste disposal dump has historically been a constraint on Australia and the world in the development of greater Nuclear ambitions. Reports of illegal dumping and covert placement of radioactive waste abound both here and across the world. Reports of French waste being held at Lucas Heights and American wasteat Pine Gap are recent additions to these claims.Despite peoples’ efforts over many generations to call for and act on Peaceful Principles in our World, Environmental Sustainability and Productivity based on Need rather than Greed, capitalism and its theory of perpetual growth continues to drive forward in an overtly destructive manner.
The continued focus on South Australia to perpetuate the nuclear travesty on our planet is acknowledged through this Forum and collectively we stand against this invasion. We walk with the Protectors of Country with Respect for Life.
Stalemate in Australian govt’s effort to change Native Title Act
Native Title Act changes stuck amid stand-off between major parties, ABC News By political reporter Dan Conifer, 11 May 17, Native Title Act changes the Government declared urgent in February will not pass Parliament until at least mid-June, amid a stand-off between the major parties.
Key points:
- Coalition moved to amend native title laws after major deal with WA Government and traditional owners scuttled in court
- Federal Court ruling threw hundreds of agreements around the country into doubt
- Coalition proposed legislation that would allow ILUAs to be registered with consent from most claimants
The Coalition moved to amend the law months ago after a court scuttled a major deal between the West Australian Government and traditional owners.
The Federal Court ruling overturned years of established law, throwing doubt over more than 100 agreements nationwide, including one covering Adani’s proposed multi-billion-dollar Queensland coal mine. The decision meant Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) needed to be signed by all native title claimants before coming into force. The Coalition proposed legislation that would allow ILUAs to be registered with consent from most claimants.
Since February, the bill has been repeatedly amended, with two revisions coming just this week……. The Upper House next sits on June 13. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/native-title-act-changes-wont-pass-until-mid-june/8519174
Senate frustrates Government’s push to pass Native Title Bill
Traditional Owners fighting Adani heartened by Senate’s defence of native title,
deferred vote on changes http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/senate-frustrates-governments-push-to-pass-native-title-bill/~ Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) wanganjagalingou.com.au 11 May 2017:
“Despite the Prime Minister recently reassuring billionaire Gautam Adani that he will ‘fix’ native title laws to enable Adani’s controversial mine to go ahead, the Turnbull Government failed in the Senate again today, with its Native Title Amendment Bill being pushed off to June.
“Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J)Traditional Owners Council, Burragubba, said “The Senate blew the Government’s cover on the false urgency it has been relying on to push the Bill through. It is clear that there is no immediate threat to Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) from the recent Federal Court McGlade decision.
““The Wangan and Jagalingou Council are heartened that our right to object to a land use agreement over our lands, because our common law native title is threatened with extinguishment, has gained recognition in the Federal Parliament.
““Opposition and Greens Senators spoke clearly and strongly about the need to put the native title rights of Traditional Owners ahead of all other interests, including mining, when making changes to the Native Title Act. …
“Youth spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, MsMurrawah Johnson, said, “The Government has again failed to pass the changes to the Native Title Act
it has been seeking in its clamour to back the Adani mine.” “The Coalition has worked furiously to fast-track these amendments to overturn the recent McGlade decision in the Federal Court, which render Adani’s purported land use agreement incapable of registration.
““The Turnbull government has treated our native title as worthless and ignored the wishes of the Australian people in trying to push through this bill. We have had immense support from thousands of Australians who have implored the Parliament not to mess with our rights and those of Traditional Owners around the country.
““This reflects a recent national poll which showed that nearly two-thirds of Australians
believe that where Traditional Owners are opposed to Adani’s mine being being built on their lands,
State and Federal governments should wait for consent rather than push ahead with the mine. … “
Federal budget 2017: Funding boost for expanding gas sector, but little for renewable sector
ABC Rural By Babs McHugh, 11 May 17 The Federal budget includes a number of multi-million-dollar measures to ensure more gas is available and shore up east-coast supplies.
Investment, environmental research, pipeline feasibility studies and other semi-regulatory bodies are at the heart of the spend.
It also is very pointed in its inference that states and territories with moratoria in place on gas drilling, exploration or fracking will not have access to funds…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-05-10/federal-budget-2017-gives-gas-a-boost/8513832
On the whole, the Turnbull budget ignores climate change, and fails to plan for long term energy system
Other announcements included the Government reaffirming their $110m loan commitment for the solar thermal project in Port Augusta.
Most of the package will go to measures that will accelerate exploration and assessment of onshore gas and lay the groundwork for new gas pipelines.
It is clear from this budget that the Coalition government is failing to undertake the longer term strategic thinking that is needed to transform Australia’s energy system and wider economy to address Australia’s growing emissions
Turnbull’s budget ignores energy crisis and dodges climate http://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbulls-budget-ignores-energy-crisis-dodges-climate-24886/ By Matthew Rose on 10 May 2017
Unfortunately, the second budget of the Turnbull Government continues their dire management of Australia’s energy and climate change policy. By the government’s own admission, they are in the grip of an ‘energy crisis’ largely concerning east coast gas supplies. The energy sector overall has been plagued by policy uncertainty.
Earlier in the week the Energy and Environment Minister admitted Australia wouldn’t meet its Paris Commitment of net zero emissions by 2050 and instead the end of the century was a more realistic ambition.
This ambition ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence that net zero emissions by the end of the century is totally inadequate in avoiding extremely dangerous climate change. It is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goal of holding global warming well below 2 degrees and to pursue a 1.5-degree limit. In short, it is a grossly negligent position from Australia’s environment minister.
Despite these self-identified challenges the Federal Budget fails to address them. The current centrepiece of the Government’s climate policy the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) remains under a cloud with no further funding allocated in the Budget. Continue reading
2017 – Federal Budget – nuclear issues SUMMARY
2017 – Federal Budget – nuclear issues SUMMARY
Budget Paper 1.
Risks
- There may be potential claims made in relation to asbestos relates diseases from asbestos at the ANSTO site – potential costs have not been identified
- The Government has formally agreed (21/04/2016) to indemnify ANSTO and ANSTO officers, and ANM and ANM Officers from any loss or liability arising from claims caused by ionising radiation. This is in place until April 2026.
- The Government claims it has already indemnified the Maralinga Tjarutja people in respect of claims arising from test site contamination (through the terms of the Maralinga Nuclear Test Site Handback Deed.)
- Cessation of funding for the development of a detailed business case for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Budget Paper 2.
Expenses * British Nuclear Test Veterans * three different figures (pg’s 48,57, 59, 175 &186) *more details on pg 93 of Budget Paper 4.
$133.1 over four years for health care (public or private) for any medical condition, irrespective of whether the condition is linked to their service. Includes participants in the British nuclear test program in Australia and vetereans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (who were deployed in or near Hiroshima).
National Medical Stockpile. Pg – 188.
The government will provide $85.4 million over 3 years to replenish national medial stockpiles – a strategic reserve in response to any chemical, biological or nuclear event.
Budget Paper 3.
Rum Jungle, pg 55
Environmental Management of the former Rum Jungle uranium mine site: $6.1 million 2017-2018, and $4 million in 2018-2019. This funding is a National Partnership payment to support State environment services. The funding is for a program of work established to improve the management of the site and further develop a rehab strategy.
Ranger, pg 77
Commonwealth provides general assistance to the NT on uranium at Ranger (because the Commonwealth owns NT uranium) *payments are made at a royalty rate of 1.25 % of net proceeds of sales. *** unclear what $ if any goes from Commonwealth to the NT….
All about the Adani coal mine expansion plan
I can no longer keep up with thishttp://www.afr.com/news/politics/adani-admits-overseas-steel-cheaper-but-still-prepared-to-buy-local-20170503-gvyfc9
GREEN groups will go to war with the Commonwealth Bank this week after documents revealed a continuing relationship with Adani that helped the controversial Carmichael mine gain approval for a water licence.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/green-groups-to-target-commonwealth-bank-over-potential-adani-financing/news-story/94d9701fe05b3801612015bd33bfb9ae
ADANI is facing a new investigation by the Queensland Government into its operations after water released at its Abbot Point facility was found to contain eight times the permitted level of sediment.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/adani-coal-port-under-investigation-from-queensland-government-for-sediment-runoff/news-story/b51d7e9667c5dd7f08b4f4ff8027b736
Survey shows 41% of people support bank’s decision to rule out funding Adani’s Queensland mine, with only 14% against, as the resources minister vows to switch banks
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/westpacs-adani-decision-finds-public-support-despite-canavans-disapproval
A PROMISE to source $74 million worth of steel from Arrium has been welcomed by the State Government, but Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis warns it won’t be the “saviour” of the Whyalla steelworks.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/jobs/adanis-deal-to-buy-74-million-in-steel-from-arrium-no-saviour-for-whyalla-says-sa-treasurer/news-story/e89ffd0e26a4662b174e1ff281358aff
Adani faces possible multi-million-dollar fine over Abbot Point sediment water discharge
Mining giant Adani faces a possible multi-million-dollar fine after sediment water eight times above authorised levels was discharged from the Abbot Point coal terminal last month, the ABC can reveal.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-03/adani-faces-multi-million-dollar-fine-over-sediment-water/8494398
A QUEENSLAND politician has slammed opponents of coal power, claiming if you don’t support coal, you can “sit under palm trees and weave baskets for a living”.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/gladstone-deputy-mayor-chris-trevor-slams-latte-sippers-who-are-against-coal/news-story/ef369f68cba0f34799928affcadf26e2
David Peetz, Griffith University and Georgina Murray, Griffith University
As the cost of renewable energy falls, funding a new mine is a risky investment.
http://theconversation.com/the-government-is-swimming-against-the-tide-on-westpacs-adani-decision-76950
Adani wards off Whyalla wipeout
The proposed $16.5bn Adani Carmichael mine project has thrown a lifeline to South Australia’s steel industry.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/adani-to-ward-off-whyalla-wipeout-with-pledge-to-use-arriums-steel/news-story/ac0acfb6b7d5f51e63417301ce65e1c1
Hydro electricity versus coal-fired power – northern Queensland election issue?
Hydro electricity versus coal-fired power in north Queensland set to be major state election issue, ABC News By Chris O’Brien, 2 May 17 and staff Hydro electricity versus coal-fired power for north Queensland will be a major issue in the next state election, with voters to choose between rival plans that have support from opposite sides of federal politics.
The Queensland Government’s weekend announcement of a feasibility study for a hydro-electric power station at the Burdekin Falls Dam was strengthened today with a $200 million pledge by federal Labor leader Bill Shorten.
“With hydro-electric power being generated we can start doing something about providing greater reliable power for Townsville, for its residents and for its businesses,” Mr Shorten said.
That contrasted with Queensland Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls’ previously announced policy for a new coal-fired generator in the north……..The LNP’s coal-fired plan was supported by the Prime Minister and federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/hydro-electricity-vs-coal-fired-power-north-qld-state-election/8490232
Political risk for Turnbull in pandering to Big Coal over Adani mine
Turnbull’s foolish gamble to pander to Big Fossil over Adani coal mine, SMH, crispinhull.com.au Crispin Hull , 1 May 17, Is Malcolm Turnbull determined to lose the 2019 election? His statement this week that the government could underwrite the rail line for the Adani mine would have increased the anger among small businesses in the six reef seats. Continue reading
Federal Minister For Coal, Matt Canavan cause the Australian States “silly”
Canavan slams ‘silly’ states, Minister says firms are being by punished by states’ moratoria on gas exploration, as poll shows majority support for bans, THE AUSTRALIAN, RACHEL BAXENDALE, 29 Apr 17, Resources Minister Matthew Canavan says Australian businesses are being held back by the “silly decisions of state governments” who have placed moratoria on unconventional gas exploration, despite a new poll showing the majority of Australians support the bans.
More than twice as many Australians support moratoriums on fracking (56 per cent) as those who oppose them (20 per cent), according to an Australia Institute survey of 1420 people conducted over a week in March.
That majority in favour of bans on new unconventional gas extractions including hydraulic fracturing (fracking) was evident across all states.
The opposition to fracking also crossed party lines, with Labor, Liberal and minor party voters all expressing concern……
Australia Institute deputy director Ebony Bennett said industry demands to open more land to fracking were not about reducing energy prices but maximising profits.
“The current gas crisis and high gas prices are not an unintended consequence, but the result of linking Australia to the international gas market,” she said.
Shadow Environment Minister Mark Butler said Labor had dragged the government kicking as screaming to its decision to place export restrictions on the gas companies.
“We’d seen for a couple of years that there was a potential supply crunch coming our way because of the LNG operations and that’s why we announced in 2015 that we thought a policy of a national interest test should be adopted,” he told Insiders.
“We were rubbished by Malcolm Turnbull. He called us irresponsible. That we would wreck investment.
“The Commonwealth absolutely needed to take action and we welcome the fact that Malcolm Turnbull finally came to that decision this week.”
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the government’s export restrictions would do nothing to reduce the cost of gas domestically.
“What we’ve had happen is our gas market opened up to the international market, the prices are set at the world price,” she said. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/silly-states-holding-business-back-resources-minister/news-story/994a029f28672c0630e87dc10072346c
Federal Labor no longer supporting Adani coal mine
Federal Labor backtracking on support of Adani’s planned Carmichael coal mine, ABC News, 1 May 17 By political reporter Dan Conifer, Federal Labor is stepping back from its support of Adani’s proposed multi-billion-dollar Queensland coal project.
The Indian company is still to decide whether to proceed with its Carmichael mine in the Galilee Basin.
Earlier this month, Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten backed the project.
“I support the Adani coal mine so long as it stacks up. I hope it stacks up,” Mr Shorten said.
But Labor’s energy and environment spokesman Mark Butler today warned the development could hurt other coalmining areas……..
Westpac rules out lending to project
Westpac last week released a climate change policy stating it would only lend to projects involving higher-quality coal. The decision effectively ruled out financing the Adani development and any other ventures using coal from the Galilee Basin.
Mr Butler said the bank’s move was further proof “the economics of this project don’t stack up”.
“The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline,” he said.
“I think instead we should be thinking about other economic development and job opportunities for North Queensland.”
He said the Carmichael project would need a “miracle” to proceed.
Adani is seeking a $900 million taxpayer-subsidised loan for a rail line to the Abbot Point coal port.
According to Forbes’ rich list, group chairman Gautam Adani and his family are worth more than $8 billion.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-30/federal-labor-backtracks-on-support-of-adani-coal-mine/8483932
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 