Political terms versus environmental time-lines – the South Australian nuclear waste folly
Saving the Environment or Centralized Control of a Monopoly in Power (Electricity)? Pan Chemistry, Gareth Lewis 03/03/15 “………Political terms versus environmental time-lines 
This section raises an important point with environmental issues or challenges: the short duration of political terms (often three to six years) limits the amount that can be done in the field of environmental protection. This means that global problems, such as air pollution and global warming that have no geographic boundaries and are likely to be long-term challenges may not be attempted. Even ‘smaller’ challenges like preserving the Great Barrier Reef and ensuring the viability of water supply and usage along the River Murray cannot be addressed in any one political term (nor have they been): there’s just insufficient time and funds to do so. Additionally, the political fallout from such ventures may not ensure the duration of the political term (a political paradox). A case could easily be argued that such issues should be written into Federal politics and once initiated they should go ahead regardless of the social and political climate.
The proposed nuclear industry and global radioactive nuclear waste dump in South Australia is similarly a complex issue and will affect many generations to come. However, given the comparatively simple challenge of managing water supply and usage along the Murray River how likely is it that a proposed nuclear industry would be managed efficiently? I am not being overly ‘emotive’ here, I’m simply saying this: any proposed nuclear industry will ‘outlive’ a Royal Commission, a State and Federal Government and all of us! So; very careful consideration is needed, not only for the current generation of Australians, but for future generations who will not have a say in the decision making process that will determine the cleanliness and viability of ‘their’ environment………
Is the notion of establishing a nuclear industry in South Australia really about centralized control in the creation and distribution of energy (electricity)?
A skeptic 
could easily argue that the use of nuclear energy has nothing at all to do with ‘saving the environment:’ but that it’s really about centralized control in the production and sale of electricity in a monopoly system. After all, it’s easy to control a centralized supply and demand system, and it’s exactly what we have in place today in the world-wide production and sale of fossil fuels.
This notion of ‘centralized control’ is a whole topic in itself and is beyond the scope of the original question: ‘should a nuclear industry (uranium mining, sale of uranium and storage of global radioactive nuclear waste) be established in South Australia. My personal opinion (emphasis) and answer to this question at this time is no. I believe we have sufficient solar energy and land mass in Australia to develop and perfect the solar cell industry and such technology could then be licensed and sold overseas. Besides, the success of this approach has been clearly demonstrated in other countries, many of which have far less sunshine and land mass than Australia.
Additionally, the inherent risks of initiating what may be an untethered proliferation of nuclear (fission) power plants has also been demonstrated in the past at Chernobyl and Fukushima, with close calls in Long Island. However, what has not been demonstrated (thankfully) is what could happen to our environment (groundwater and surrounds) if global radioactive nuclear waste was compromised in transit or in storage by man-made or natural means. It remains to be seen whether the proposed Royal Commission will make the ‘right recommendation’ to the government in South Australia that will benefit and protect not only the current generation, but also of many future generations of Australians: so; fingers crossed :-\ 😉 http://www.gareth-panchem.com/347345675?pagenum=2
Future Fund must not finance Adani’s Carmichael coal mine
Australia’s ‘future’ fund should not consider financing the energy projects of the past http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/australias-future-fund-should-not-consider-financing-the-energy-projects-of-the-past Stephen Bygrave
Australia can be a renewable energy superpower if it plays its investment cards right – we have to move on from our misguided fossilised past
It was all over the news in India. The Indian finance minister Arun Jaitleywould be meeting Future Fund chairman Peter Costello to discuss using the Fund to help finance Adani’s Carmichael coal mine. There was no announcement of the meeting in Australia, but the questions must be asked: how should Australia’s sovereign wealth fund be used, and should it, a “future” fund, be considering the energy projects of the past?
The prospect of Costello dedicating sovereign funds to the massive coal mine in the Galilee Basin is so misguided. Future energy investment lies in renewables, not coal, and this trend is already playing out worldwide. The Australian economy already runs a real risk of becoming fossilised, caught in the past and missing out on the huge investment market in renewable energy as the world inevitably decarbonises and shifts to a zero emissions economy.
This global transition to renewables is an unavoidable condition for containing global warming below 2C. The future is renewables, the past is coal, and the economic benefits are easy to highlight.
In this transition, Australia stands to attract a major portion of the $2.3tn annual trade value from emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, like cement, steel, and aluminium. In this era, countries with abundant, cheap, high quality renewable energy will attract these industries.
The Renewable Energy Superpower report to be released in Sydney on Monday 4 April shows that Australia is consistently in the global top three of countries with economic wind and solar energy resources, whether based on energy production potential per square kilometre, energy production potential from total land area, energy production potential from un-utilised land area, or energy production potential from rural land area.
Under various scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency for their WorldEnergy Outlook, investment in renewables and energy efficiency will make up around half of the future investment in energy in the next two decades, with investment in coal only making up 1-2%.
Whichever scenario the IEA looks at, renewables and energy efficiency attracts more investment in the next two decades than coal, oil and gas combined. Some $28tn is expected to be invested globally in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2035.
Investment in renewables and energy efficiency globally is already large – around US$390bn isestimated to have been invested in 2013 alone, according to the International Energy Agency. In order to contain global warming to the 2C, the IEA estimates the annual investment in this market to more than double by 2020 to around US$750bn annually, and then to grow exponentially to US$2,300bn annually by 2035.
It also estimates that the renewables dominated power sector and energy efficiency markets will be 20-40 times the value of future coal sector development. The other important point that is relevant to Australia is that power sector and energy efficiency investment is skewed towards Australia’s neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region (40%) compared to global fossil energy investment (25%).
So how large is Australia’s renewable energy resource? While it is widely accepted that the total renewable energy resource across Australia is significant, the Superpower report conservatively models only the solar and wind resource that is available within 10kms of Australia’s existing electricity grid and able to generate power at a price competitive with other new power stations.
This is the resource that is immediately available to the existing electricity grid. The results are staggering even when only this small portion of Australia’s total renewable energy resource is captured – it is equivalent to 5000 exajoules, enough to power the world for 10 years.
Put another way, this solar and wind resource is greater than Australia’s coal, oil, gas and nuclear resources combined. Many proponents of fossil fuels argue that there are enough fossil fuels to power the world for hundreds of years, that coal is cheaper and isgood for humanity. These arguments ignore the reality that burning fossil fuels is incompatible with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting warming to 2C, that new renewables are cheaper than new coal and new gas, and that many developing countries want solar.
In the decarbonised world in which we are heading, Australia will be a renewable energy superpower if it plays its investment cards right. If we are serious about our Future Fund funding the future for all Australians, it is renewables – not coal – where the investments must be made.
Guardian Australia and the author sought comment from Future Fund before publication. Future Fund responded after publication with the statement that “Finance Minister Jaitley has never raised Adani with the Future Fund.”
We assume that Julie Bishop will oppose radioactive trash import, as she fears nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorist threats ‘terrifying’, Yahoo News 7 AAP on April 2, 2016 There are “terrifying possibilities” that terrorists could get access to nuclear material to make dirty bombs, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warns.
Speaking on the sidelines of a global nuclear summit in Washington on Saturday, Ms Bishop said Australia was committed to the global effort to secure nuclear material amid fears of the potential for a nuclear terrorist attack.
The summit is dealing with hypotheticals of what could occur and how to prevent it.
“There is a high level of concern that nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists or terrorist groups or that they would get sufficient material to make what is called a dirty bomb,” Ms Bishop told reporters……https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31238577/nuclear-terrorist-threats-terrifying/
South Australia’s changes to Aboriginal Heritage Act – a precursor to nuclear waste dumping?
Minister rejects nuclear dump spectre in Aboriginal heritage overhaul , INDAILY 29 Mar 16 Tom Richardson The State Government insists changes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act pushed through parliament last week will have “absolutely no impact whatsoever” on the debate over a potential future nuclear waste dump, which indigenous communities fear could end up on traditional lands.
Aboriginal advocates and the Greens expressed concern at the haste with which the bill was passed, arguing there was inadequate consultation on its final draft.
Legislation to amend the Heritage Act passed parliament with Labor and Liberal support, despite opposition from the South Australian Native Title Services and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, who argued the changes “have not been put before Parliament with the support of Aboriginal People”.
Sue Tilley, an indigenous social policy advocate, told InDaily: “One has to wonder about the rush to get this bill through parliament and the critical timing of this.” “South Australia is currently facing a number of contentious developments that may significantly impact on Aboriginal land and on the protection of heritage, such as the consideration of potential sites for a nuclear waste dump, and the development of the Northern Connector Road Project, amongst others,” she said in a written statement.
“Was the motivation driven by the need to have the seemingly constraining Aboriginal Heritage Act out of the way to enable these and other developments to proceed unhindered?”
But Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kyam Maher rejected the suggestion, insisting the changes safeguarded Aboriginal communities ……..
Advocates are unconvinced, particularly with the minister ceding his authority to delegate his decision-making powers to traditional owners of a site.
“This provision gave traditional owners a powerful tool to make decisions and enter into agreement-making about protecting their heritage,” Tilley said. “The amended legislation deletes this all-important provision.”
Andrew Beckworth, the principal legal officer with South Australian Native Title Services, provided advice to Greens MLC Tammy Franks that “this bill will come as a shock to many Aboriginal People in SA, as it has done for us”.
“This bill flies in the face of what previous governments or ministers have attempted and does so without any respect for the primacy of Aboriginal people’s voices and their rights and interests in managing and protecting Aboriginal Heritage,” the submission argues.
“This is against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”………http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/29/minister-rejects-nuclear-dump-spectre-in-aboriginal-heritage-overhaul/
Uncertainty created by Australian govt’s new Clean Energy Fund
Clean Energy Fund creates uncertainty for existing renewable proposals, SA Energy Minister says ABC News 24 Mar 16 Changes to the Federal Government’s energy agencies have created uncertainty in South Australia’s renewable energy industry, State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.
Key points:
- Changes ‘turn grants into loans’
- Business models to be affected, SA Energy Minister warns
- Union says clean energy fund is ‘too little, too late’
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced he would retain the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which former prime minister Tony Abbott tried to dismantle.
The agencies will manage a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF) using money previously allocated to them.
But Mr Koutsantonis said the changes meant funds administrated as grants would now be considered loans.
He said this would affect business models for proposals such as solar, wind, tidal or hot rocks energy generation.
“That has to be changed now because the money has to be paid back, so they [the Federal Government] are creating a lot of uncertainty,” Mr Koutsantonis said.
Clean energy fund ‘too little, too late’
The Australian Services Union said the clean energy fund was “too little, too late” to help SA’s Alinta Energy workforce………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/clean-energy-fund-changes-creates-uncertainty-sa-energy-minister/7272472?section=environment
Turnbull’s new cleantech fund likely to sink without trace
Turnbull Fiddles With Green Energy Policy While Carbon Continues To Burn https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/24/turnbull-fiddles-with-green-energy-policy-while-carbon-burns/ By Ben Eltham on March 24, 2016 With its renewable policy sinking without a trace and Arthur Sinodinos again in trouble, Turnbull’s extended election campaign has got off to a bad start, writes Ben Eltham.If you accept – and it’s hard to deny – that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to recall Parliament signals the start of a 14-week election campaign, then that campaign has not got off to a great start.
Policy is being announced. Yesterday, for instance, the government announced a new $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund, “to support emerging technologies make the leap from demonstration to commercial deployment.”
Superficially, the fund looks like a good idea. Australia is well behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to clean tech industries. A fund to support capital investment in “emerging clean energy technologies” will no doubt be welcomed by a struggling sector.
Of course, a big reason for these struggles is the Coalition itself. The Rudd and Gillard governments put in place a comprehensive suite of policies designed to drive investment in the clean tech and renewables sectors. The Abbott government abolished nearly all of them. Amidst the smoking ruins of the Abbott government’s climate policies, investment and jobs in the renewables sector cratered. Meanwhile, our competitors in America, Europe and China forged ahead.
At least the Coalition has finally decided that it will keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a government finance corporation for the clean tech sector. Once derided as “Bob Brown’s bank”, apparently someone has at last noticed that he CEFC actually makes money for the government by lending at commercial rates of interest.
That’s about as much as you could say for yesterday’s announcement, which has already been derided by experts and analysts as little more than a “shell game.” This is not a billion new dollars for clean tech: it is instead simply a repurposing of money already budgeted to the CEFC, which the government has bee trying to abolish for years now, but wasn’t able to as a result of opposition from the Senate crossbenchers. Continue reading
Turnbull cuts climate research money – spends it on ‘wind farm health effects’
‘Quite disgraceful’: NHMRC doles out $3.3m to study windfarm effects on health, The Age, March 23, 2016 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Australia’s top medical research body has given two researchers $3.3 million to study the effects of wind farms on human health despite its own year-long study finding no “consistent evidence” that a problem exists.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) awarded Guy Marks, a professor at the University of NSW $1.94m, to study the health impacts of infrasound – sound waves typically inaudible to humans – generated by wind turbines.
Peter Catcheside, an associate professor at Flinders University, secured $1.36m to investigate whether wind farms disturb sleep compared with traffic noise.
The outcomes of these studies, promoted by a so-called targeted call for research, will assist in developing policy and public health recommendations regarding wind turbine development and operations, the council said.
The research call was criticised last year, with even NSW and Victorian health officials calling for the NHMRC “to make it clear that the total available evidence (parallel and direct) suggest[s] little health risk,” according to emails from these health officials seen by Fairfax Media.
Senior members of the Abbott government, including then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, made public their opposition to wind farms. Then Treasurer Joe Hockey also dubbed wind turbines as “utterly offensive” and “a blight on the landscape”.
Simon Chapman, an emeritus professor of public health at the University of Sydney, said there had been at least 25 reviews internationally – including by the NHMRC – that showed “very little evidence of direct effects” from wind farms.
Effects that did exist could be put down to psycho-social factors, such as pre-existing antipathy to wind farms, resentment by locals who had received no benefit from turbines in their region, and anxiety of perceived health impacts, Professor Chapman said.
“It’s really quite disgraceful – it’s money literally poured down the drain,” he said. “There is no health or medical agency in the world that would give any rational priority to wind farms and health. “Potentially hundreds of researchers who had just missed on funding research would be angry as the money is being spent on wind farm research.”
Fairfax Media has sought additional comment from the NHMRC.
Senator Kim Carr, shadow science minister, said the funding came at a time when the Turnbull government was taking the axe to hundreds of scientists – including climate researchers – at the CSIRO.”The Liberals cannot plead innocence in cutting climate and manufacturing research in the CSIRO…while handing out money for contentious research into things like the supposed health effects of wind farms,” he said.
“The Abbott-Turnbull Government is hell-bent on politicising Australian research,” he said. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/quite-disgraceful-nhmrc-doles-out-33m-to-study-windfarm-effects-on-health-20160321-gnnzhe.html#ixzz43wzQSmqb
Turnbull govt “clean energy” plan designed to stall renewable energy projects?
Green power projects to falter under Turnbull government plan, critics say http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/green-power-projects-to-falter-under-turnbull-government-plan-critics-say-20160322-gnooqi.html March 22, 2016 –Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent The Turnbull government would be taking a “risky gamble” with the renewable energy sector by merging two key climate action bodies and forcing vulnerable new ventures to borrow funds rather than receive grants, green power advocates say.
Guardian Australia has reported that the government intends to combine the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency – two bodies that provide financial support to emerging renewable technologies.
The CEFC issues loans that must be paid back while ARENA provides grants, including a focus on projects in the research and development phase that would otherwise struggle to attract investment.
There is speculation that the merger model will mean grants would be scrapped and only loans would be available – raising questions over whether projects in their very early stages would be funded at all.
Solar Citizens national director Claire O’Rourke said the plan was a “risky gamble on the future of renewables in Australia” and would harm both research and development and reduce investment in demonstration projects.
“The kinds of projects that ARENA funds won’t necessarily get support from the CEFC because the investment conditions are different,” she said.
Ms O’Rourke said Australia’s clean energy future would be jeopardised by “gambling on secure, long-term funding for major proven programs that support innovation and investment in renewables”.
ARENA has committed more than $1 billion in grants to more than 230 projects, studies, scholarships and fellowships since mid-2012.
The former Abbott government sought to abolish both ARENA and the CEFC, and a merger would ensure their survival under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has so far refused to guarantee their future.
However Clean Energy Council Chief executive Kane Thornton said reports that the bodies could be “funded by future borrowings are of particular concern for the sector”.
“While we recognise there are opportunities for more co-ordination and a closer working relationship between ARENA and the CEFC, it is important that the government continues future support through funding for projects, innovative finance and … high-level research and capability,” he said.
The office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt did not comment.
Dispute in South Australia, as Labor govt wants to scrap law against expenditure towards nuclear waste dumping
State Parliament has backed removing a law against investigating nuclear dumping, with dispute over when it should take effect, The Advertiser, March 22, 2016 Daniel Wills State Political Editor The Royal Commission’s tentative findings were that a nuclear dump could be constructed safely in SA STATE Parliament has taken its first step toward supporting nuclear waste storage, with bipartisan support to repeal laws that ban spending money on investigating its establishment.
However, a dispute has emerged over State Government plans to make the changes effective as of several weeks ago amid Opposition questions about if the law has already been broken.
Premier Jay Weatherill a fortnight ago announced plans to change laws enacted under the former Liberal government which stop public money being spent on encouraging a dump.
He said the move did not signal support for a dump in SA, but the laws could prevent robust debate and investigations once the final Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report is released.
The existing law states: “no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this state”.
Mr Weatherill said legal advice found the Commission did not break existing law……..
Greens MP Mark Parnell has previously told Parliament he believes the law may have been broken by commissioning telephone interviews with citizens seeking their views on storage.
Conservation SA today released a report from left-leaning think-tank The Australia Institute which cast doubts on the economic benefits of nuclear storage in SA.
Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said it “confirms what many South Australians suspect”, in that “the dump proposal being pushed seems way too good to be true”.
“Because there is no international market for high level nuclear waste, any prices, or costs underpinning any possible return for our state are pure guesswork based on assumptions and modelling,” Mr Wilkins said. “The consultants have made some extraordinarily optimistic assumptions about the price other countries will be willing to pay.
“They assume South Australia will be able to do something that even experienced nuclear countries have never managed to do, at a cheaper price.
“They also ignore the very real possibility that SA could take a cut in its GST revenue if this project did manage to make money.
“A project with this level of risk to future South Australians needs to stack up on economic grounds as well as safety and ethical ones. Our concern is that this fails on all three.” http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/state-parliament-has-backed-removing-a-law-against-investigating-nuclear-dumping-with-dispute-over-when-it-should-take-effect/news-story/a9bb5ee604fc4f7e850e4a9116cbdd0d
Turnbull suggests Port Augusta solar thermal plant for federal clean energy plan
Port Augusta solar thermal plant likely to be funded by $1 billion federal clean energy fund March 23, 2016 PETER JEAN POLITICAL REPORTER The Advertiser A LARGE solar thermal plant at Port Augusta is likely to be one of the first projects supported by a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund, to be announced by the Federal Government today.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Environment Minister Greg Hunt will today reveal plans for the fund, which will invest up to $100 million per year in emerging technologies.
The announcement comes after the federal and state government were urged to back the development of a solar plan at Port Augusta, where hundreds of jobs will be lost when two coal-fired power stations close in May.
It is likely to cause tension with conservative elements in the Coalition, particularly those who have aligned themselves with former prime minister Tony Abbott.
“We are promoting innovation and new economic opportunities, enhancing our productivity, protecting our environment and reducing emissions to tackle climate change,’’ Mr Turnbull said last night.
“An example of a project could be a large scale solar facility with storage in Port Augusta.
“By offering innovative equity and debt products, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund can accelerate the availability of new technologies to transform the energy market, and deliver better value for taxpayers.”
American company SolarReserve had been seeking support for the development of a large solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Similar projects in the United States have created about 1000 construction jobs, 50 ongoing roles and 4000 indirect jobs.
A delegation of federal MPs visited a large solar power station built by SolarReserve in the American state of Nevada last year…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/port-augusta-solar-thermal-plant-likely-to-be-funded-by-1-billion-federal-clean-energy-fund/news-story/7be66ebf70e864e8a1a9cb9a95bd83bc#load-story-comments
Mixed reaction to Turnbull’s Clean Energy Innovation Fund
Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, was this morning not totally convinced about the new fund. He told ABC radio the proposal was “really giving with one hand while taking from the other”. (The new fund will be financed by $10 million from ARENA over 10 years. )
“This proposal obviously keeps the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and that’s a welcome development.
“But essentially it is removing funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and really I guess constraining it in terms of its ability to provide capital grants to the sector into the future.”
- See the full transcript of this interview here
- Read more media articles here, in The Guardian
- Fairfax Media
And see how the extreme right wing sees the news here (It calls the destruction of the Liberal Party by Turnbull)
As we draw near to a possible election on 2 July, we’ll be watching closely. The whole world will be.
Turnbull announced $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/politics/turnbull-announced-1-billion-clean-energy-innovation-fund/81166 Tina Perinotto | 23 March 2016
Malcolm Turnbull has finally caved to his supporters instead of the Abbott camp by announcing early today a decisive and dramatic signal move to support climate action. He’s announced not only a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund but a commitment to retain the Clean Energy Finance Corporation AND the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Media today was awash with news of the fund designed to create innovation and jobs with smart grids, alternative energy such as bio fuels and large-scale solar projects.
It’s the most-vote winning confidence-boosting thing he’s done since winning office and making his statement on innovation, essentially declaring Australia was back in the land of the living, instead of the walking dead. It’s a powerful wake-up call to Labor to get back on the most important and competitive bandwagon going, the fight to save our planet AND create a innovation clean, green and lean economy. Continue reading
To thwart Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull is even trying to look green
Malcolm Turnbull’s green shift another blow to Tony Abbott, The Age, March 23, 2016 –Mark Kenny Chief political correspondent Malcolm Turnbull has added to the growing differences between his administration and the previous Abbott government by reversing Coalition hostility to forward-leaning climate change policy through the creation of a new $1 billion clean energy innovation fund.
And he has bolstered that move with a formal commitment to keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, both of which had been set for abolition under Mr Abbott’s leadership. Continue reading
Unlike Britain,Australia is, at present, easily able to avoid a very bad nuclear deal
Secret deals: Australia’s nuclear waste plan and the UK’s Hinkley project, Independent Australia 21 March 2016, The South Australian Government scheme to import international nuclear waste has a major flaw in common with the UK’s Hinkley Point C project — secret contracts with foreign organisations, writes Noel Wauchope.
THESE TWO PLANS have something in common. Both the UK’s Hinkley Point C plan and South Australia’s nuclear waste plan are grandiose and very expensive to set up.
But, more than that, they both require the involvement of foreign governments and companies, in secret arrangements.
The South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission‘s plan for importing international wastes already involves confidential communications from foreign companies. Put into operation, the plan will mean secret contracts — South Australia being beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure, shipping and transport security, insurance and other matters relating to a client nation’s high level nuclear wastes (HLNW).
Plans have been suggested for foreign companies paying up front towards the setting up of the waste facility, in exchange for “ironclad contracts”to later set up “Generation IV” nuclear reactors. With foreign governments and companies involved, South Australia is very likely to become locked in to a deal from which it cannot escape. A later decision to pull out of the scheme would certainly entail heavy compensation payments to foreign companies.
Britain’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project is thoroughly embroiled in complicated negotiations with the government-owned companies of China and France. The major backer, Electricite De France(EDF) is in grave financial trouble and its financial director Thomas Piquemal has resigned, over this Hinkley project. EDF is being bailed out by the French government, so that the £18bn plan can go ahead. UK has had to agree to a contract with EDF, amounting to about £40bn in real terms, and providing State guarantees on insurance, among other matters. The plan locks the UK in, with compensation costs in the event of it being shut down, as shown in an unpublicised departmental “minute“:…….
Professor Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter, comments in The Guardian:
The £22bn “poison pill” effectively reduces the risk to zero for EDF and its backers, which is great for them. But from an outside perspective, it smacks of desperation.
There could be so many reasons over 35 years that you would want to close the plant, including rising costs, changes to the UK’s energy system or loss of public confidence……..
However, in two important ways, the Australian situation is very different from that of the UK.
Firstly, although the UK Hinkley project is big, the South Australian nuclear waste plan is ginormous. Potentially sourcing high level nuclear wastes (HLNW) from around the world – USA, Canada, Europe, Asia – would be a massive operation, many decades in the setting up, many thousands of years in carrying it out. The money involved would be not dozens of billions of dollars in costs but hundreds of billions.
Secondly, for all the millions in dollars now being spent on the Royal Commission project – the trips abroad, forums, research, public relations and so on – the plan is nowhere near the point of agreement, whereas the UK plan is well advanced…….
It is vitally important for Australia to pay attention to the Royal Commission plan and to the scrutiny of South Australian radiation expert Paul Langley. and others. Unlike Britain, Australia has the opportunity to prevent this plan, while it’s still only a gleam in the eyes of Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce and the nuclear lobby. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/secret-deals-australias-nuclear-waste-plan-and-the-uks-hinkley-project,8797
A South Australian Labor MP has the guts to speak out against nuclear waste dump plan
“I don’t want nuclear dump”: Labor MP http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/18/i-dont-want-nuclear-dump-labor-mp/, Tom Richardson, 18 Mar 16
Jay Weatherill could face a divided party if he forges ahead with a proposal to establish a high level nuclear waste dump in South Australia, with a long-time Labor MP telling InDaily the idea is “quite worrying” – and suggesting several colleagues share the same view.
The tentative findings of Kevin Scarce’s nuclear royal commission handed down last month found an unambiguous economic case to establish a repository, with the Premier already moving to amend the law to facilitate broader debate on the issue.
But the debate is heating up in the corridors of parliament, with former Labor minister and Ashford MP Steph Key joining Greens MLC Mark Parnell – a vocal opponent of increasing SA’s nuclear involvement – in sponsoring a briefing for interested MPs by a noted critic of the waste dump push.
An email went out to all MPs this week, reading: “Dear colleagues, there’s been so much said about an economic bonanza from building a global nuclear waste facility – but what if the economics don’t stack up?”
“Come and hear from Dr Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute,” it concluded.
The briefing will be held on Tuesday, after a public briefing by Denniss together with economist and InDaily columnist Richard Blandy, both of whom have argued against the economic case for a waste dump.
“I think it would be fairly well known that I’m an anti-nuclear person,” Key said when contacted by InDaily. “I have been for the last 40 years, and I still am.” She said she was “interested to know what [Denniss and Blandy] have to say about the costings that have been put forward so far”.
“People are saying it could help us economically [but] I don’t actually want to have a dump at all,” she said. “I’m just interested to know whether these billions of dollars cited actually stack up – Mark and I decided we’d try and offer something to people that can come along.”
Key says she believes SA should “store our own waste [and] I do have some sympathy for low level or intermediate level repository”, but she has grave misgivings about a high-level global storage facility.
“I want to know all about it… the study I have done, I think it’s quite worrying,” she said, citing concerns over transportation. “We keep getting things across the sea and then by train, presumably, and truck… what does all that mean? What’s the risk analysis of all that? There’s quite a bit to consider.”
Labor right-winger Tom Kenyon has argued passionately in favour of the repository, but Key – a Left-faction stalwart – says: “I want to have a look at all the facts before I come out and argue in a very public way about this issue.”
“And I want to talk to my colleagues, but I get the impression that quite a few of them have a lot of sympathy for my way of thinking,” she said. “I’ve spoke quite passionately at both convention and state council – and national conference – over the years, so I don’t think anyone would be surprised that I don’t think this is a good idea.
“I just remember Fukushima – five years on and there’s still just people helping with the cleanup, let alone the natural disaster that it was… it just seems like a very big risk to me, and if it doesn’t stack up financially I think people are starting to run out of arguments.”
Greens call on Nuclear Royal Commission to “get real”
The Greens SA’s submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings rejects the suggestion that an economic bonanza awaits our State if South Australians would only resign ourselves to becoming the world’s nuclear garbage bin.
“The Royal Commission has been blinded by imaginary wealth and sucked into believing that a project that has never succeeded anywhere else in the World is South Australia’s for the taking”, said Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“The most obvious question is being ignored: If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now?
“The Greens are urging the Royal Commission to “get real” and critically examine the supposed economic benefits alongside the ongoing economic, social, environmental and reputational costs.
“Washing your hands of responsibility for a toxic legacy left to future generations is just immoral.
“The solution to South Australia’s current unemployment problems won’t be solved with mythical jobs that are decades into the future with the creation of toxic liabilities that last hundreds of thousands of year.
On releasing the “Tentative Findings” Report to the media on 15th February 2016, Commissioner Kevin Scarce stated, “The community needs to understand the risks and the benefits.” The Royal Commission’s “Tentative Findings” highlights many purported benefits but is scant on detail when it comes to the profound risks.
According to the Greens’ submission, the “Tentative Findings” suffer from:
1.Unrealistic expectations of the magnitude of the project;
2.Failure to appreciate 6 decades of international failure to solve the nuclear waste problem;
3.Missing costs, unfunded liabilities, missing contingencies and failure to recognise inevitable cost blow-outs
4.Heroic assumptions of other countries’ willingness to pay for SA to take their nuclear waste;
5.Lack of recognition of the potential for irrecoverable sunk costs and unlimited future liabilities;
6.Failure to address reputational damage and impact on other sectors of the economy; and
7.Naïve expectations that South Australia would get to keep all the profits from a nuclear waste dump in our State, without having to share them with other States.
“The Commission’s final report due on 6th May should recommend that the folly of South Australia’s increased involvement in the nuclear industry be abandoned.
“In relation to the other Terms of Reference, increased uranium mining, uranium processing or nuclear power were never really an option for SA and the Royal Commission was an expensive way to tell us what we already knew”, concluded Mark Parnell.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 