Australian govt’s new fossil fuel “growth centre” !
Coalition digs deeper into fossil fuels with new “growth centre” http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-digs-deeper-into-fossil-fuels-with-new-growth-centre-82395 By Sophie Vorrath on 25 February 2016
Part of the government’s $248 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative, the Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Growth Centre was unveiled on Wednesday by federal energy minister Josh Frydenberg and minister for innovation and industry, Christopher Pyne. The ministers said they hoped the facility – in which the Turnbull government is investing $15.4 million over four years – would help position Australia’s energy and resources sector for the next wave of investment.
It will be chaired by long-time oil and gas industry executive, Ken Fitzpatrick, with a board and management team drawn from across the oil, gas, coal seam gas, coal and uranium industries.
According to the website, the growth centre’s mission is to reduce industry costs, direct research to industry needs, improve work skills, facilitate partnerships and reduce regulatory burdens.
It will also have a particular focus on improving knowledge and techniques needed to unlock Australia’s marginal gas resources like coal-seam gas – a controversial and high-cost field of exploration and production that AGL Energy recently ruled out of its repertoire to focus, instead, on the “evolution” of the energy industry.
Pyne says the new growth centre – which will be known as National Energy Resources Australia, or NERA – will work closely with researchers from universities and the newly streamlined CSIRO, the irony of which was not lost on critics of the scheme.
“Pouring millions of dollars into research for the fossil fuel industry adds insult to injury for the CSIRO climate scientists who are set to lose their jobs under Malcolm Turnbull and his government’s watch,” said Greens energy spokesman Adam Bandt on Thursday.
“Not only is the Liberal government allowing the CSIRO to cut climate science, it’s making the scientists who don’t lose their job try to breathe life into the dying fossil fuel industries.
“(It) is pouring millions of dollars into a big hole in the ground, which is directly at odds with what the science tells us we must do,” Bandt said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the establishment of NERA amounted to another multi-million dollar subsidy to big polluting energy companies. “This money would be better spent extending the funding of the Australian Climate Change Science Program which is due to expire in June this year,” said ACF climate program manager Victoria McKenzie-McHarg.
“The world has changed since the Paris agreement. This budget the government should focus on supporting the science, technology and clean energy innovation of the future, not keep subsidising pollution.”
“Australia’s energy and resources sectors make a vital contribution to the Australian economy,” said Frydenberg in a statement on Thursday. “During this challenging time, the Growth Centre will drive collaboration and innovation, and direct research to industry needs, ultimately improving productivity to ensure Australia remains globally competitive.”
Senate motion today on nuclear waste dumping and community opposition
22 Feb 16 NOTICE OF MOTION
I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that –
The Senate –
- Notes that
- the Australian Government has initiated a voluntary site selection process for a
national radioactive waste facility; - consecutive Ministers have confirmed that a such a facility would not proceed against the wishes of host communities;
- six sites have been selected for further assessment for shortlisting, including Hill End in New South Wales, Omanama in Queensland, Hale in the Northern Territory, Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia;
- strong local opposition clearly exists at all six sites currently under consideration, and;
- Calls on the Government to:
- Acknowledge the opposition and lack of community support at all six sites
- Respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent and remove all six sites from further consideration
- Initiate a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate long-term stewardship options for spent fuel, reprocessing wastes, and other categories of radioactive waste, including drawing on international examples and experience;
- Investigate options for active waste minimisation, including increased use of non-reactor based methods for radioisotope production, and;
- Clearly reaffirm policy and legislative prohibitions on the importation and disposal of international radioactive waste.
SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM
National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides any local opposition to nuclear waste dump
Overriding opposition, Jim Green 21 Feb 16 Bruce Wilson said it would be unlikely that the federal government would override state/territory government opposition to a repository. But that’s exactly what the federal government did the first time round (1998– 2004). And that’s exactly what the federal government did in the NT (2005– 2014). As Wilson acknowledged, the government retains the power to override state/territory governments in order to impose a radioactive waste repository/store. The government should amend the legislation so it no longer has that power.
Wilson said the National Radioactive Waste Management Act is consent-driven ‘world’s best practice’ legislation. In fact, it gives the federal government extraordinary powers to override state/territory governments, councils, communities, Traditional Owners and anyone else.
A government rep said the government gave up on the Muckaty / NT site when it realised that community support was lacking. That’s false. The government knew that a majority of Traditional Owners opposed the proposed repository/store in 2006/07 but only gave up in 2014.
Kimba residents are all too aware of the distress and division that the radioactive waste issue has created in the past six months. Muckaty Traditional Owners endured the same problems for the best part of a decade. “We’ll probably have one of the first good sleeps we’ve had in eight years,” Marlene Bennett said when the government finally stopped its thuggish attempt to impose a radioactive waste repository on an unwilling community.
Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne, Bill Shorten do their bit for the pro nuclear dance
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has indicated he is open to the idea as long as there is community support, an economic benefit, and reassurance of environmental protection….
Overall Ms Bishop is optimistic that public opinion is in favour of more engagement with the nuclear fuel cycle………http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/australia-the-ideal-location-for-nuclear-waste-dump-says-julie-bishop/news-story/c2655249dd4f655d05bf809d6d1795c8
Australia breaches Paris climate agreement, damages economy, by cutting CSIRO climate modelling
CSIRO climate cuts will breach Paris agreement and cost economy – report
Cuts to climate modelling and measuring research contradict Australia’s pledge to strengthen commitments to climate science, the Climate Council says, Guardian Michael Slezak 21 Feb 16 Cuts to the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring research will breach Australia’s obligations under the recent Paris agreement and will result in huge costs to the economy, a report by Australia’s Climate Council has found.
The report adds to a chorus of eminent bodies and individuals criticising the move, which the CSIRO made after almost no consultation with its own scientists or other research institutions.
Earlier in the month it was revealed CSIRO would be cutting up to 350 staff from climate research programs over two years. Over the following weeks, the organisation’s chief executive Larry Marshallexplained that would result in a loss of about 50% of the staff working in climate modelling and measuring.
In a report titled “Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change without the CSIRO,” the Climate Council said governments and businesses relied on the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring work to make billion-dollar decisions and if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.
The report notes Australia and the rest of the world agreed to strengthen commitments to climate science at COP21 in Paris in December. “The recently announced cuts to climate science mean that Australia has already reneged on one of its obligations under the Paris commitments,” it concludes.
It cites a number of examples of decisions and industries that have relied on the modelling and measuring performed by the CSIRO:………
An open letter signed by more than 2800 scientists raised similar concerns. In response to the chorus of criticisms, Marshall initially said the response was more like religion than science, and compared climate scientists to oil lobbyists in the 1970s…….
It was revealed in Senate estimates that CSIRO executives did not consult with organisations like the Bureau of Meteorology who depend on CSIRO modelling until 24 hours before the cuts were made public.
Even Ken Lee, the director of the division that would take the brunt of the cuts was only told about the cuts four days before they were announced.
The Climate Council, which produced the new report, is a crowd-funded body that seeks to provide authoritative information on climate change to the community. It was created after the Abbott government cut the Climate Commission when it took government in 2013, and seeks to perform the same job. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/22/csiro-climate-cuts-will-breach-paris-agreement-and-cost-economy-report
Nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba – govt ignores relevant standards and codes
Jim Green 21 Feb 16 Some comments on the 18 Feb 2016 government ‘information session’ in Kimba regarding plans for a radioactive waste repository and above-ground ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.
1. The government ignores and breaches relevant standards and codes when it suits.
As a Kimba resident noted at the meeting, the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NH&MRC) ‘Code of Practice for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992)’ states that “the site for the facility should be located in a region which has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”.
So the government has breached the NH&MRC Code of Practice by short-listing the Kimba sites.
Following the so-called clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site in the late 1990s, nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson wrote: “The Department has claimed that burial is a safe disposal method consistent with “the [NH&MRC] Code.” This was the first time that the Code had been mentioned in relation to the Maralinga project. When three of the five authors said that it was not applicable (the other two were Commonwealth public servants and would not comment), the Department claimed that it did not have to follow the Code but had chosen to do so. It made this statement despite the fact that not a single requirement of that Code was satisfied.”
(Alan Parkinson, “The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project: Final Report”,
http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-parkinson.pdf)
So the government ignores relevant standards and codes when it suits, and the government breaches relevant standards and codes when it suits. Why would anyone trust the government to safely operate a radioactive waste facility in the Kimba region in those circumstances?
Alan Parkinson summarises the problem (keep in mind that he is pro-nuclear and a nuclear engineer): “The disposal of radioactive waste in Australia is ill-considered and irresponsible. Whether it is short-lived waste from Commonwealth facilities, long-lived plutonium waste from an atomic bomb test site on Aboriginal land, or reactor waste from Lucas Heights. The government applies double standards to suit its own agenda; there is no consistency, and little evidence of logic.”
(Alan Parkinson, 2002, ‘Double standards with radioactive waste’, Australasian Science, www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/clean-up)
Western Australian govt to press on with its changes to Aboriginal heritage legislation
WA government to proceed with controversial changes to Aboriginal heritage legislation, ABC News 19 Feb 16 By Jacob Kagi The West Australian Government intends to proceed with controversial changes to Aboriginal heritage legislation, despite progress on the bill stalling for so long that it dropped off the list Parliament was due to consider.
The Government first introduced legislation to Parliament to amend the Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2014, but there has been no substantial progress on the bill since then.
Because it had been so long since the bill had been debated, it dropped off the Legislative Assembly’s “notice paper”, which is the list of legislation and motions which Parliament is due to consider.
However, that was rectified on Thursday, with the Government passing a motion to restore the bill to the notice paper.
The proposed changes have proven controversial, with concerns that much of the decision-making power would rest of the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and fears the legislation did not give enough of a role to Indigenous people…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/wa-government-to-proceed-with-controversial-changes-to-aborigin/7182280
Proposal for nuclear waste dump splits South Australian Kimba community
Support for proposed nuclear storage facility at Kimba difficult to determine
ABC Rural 18 Feb 16 The South Australian town of Kimba is divided over the benefits or otherwise of a low level nuclear storage facility in the area.
The Federal Government has released a shortlist of six sites nominated to store low-to-intermediate nuclear waste, with three of them located in South Australia.
The three South Australian sites are Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, and Barndioota near Hawker, north of Port Augusta.
The prospect of Kimba region being selected has caused deep divisions in the community of Kimba.
The ABC has been told some people are boycotting local businesses in town due to their opposing views 
on the issue but the Federal Member for Grey,Rowan Ramsey believes as the debate continues more people are coming around to the idea.
“That’s very concerning, I had not anticipated that people would go to those lengths. All I have ever wanted was a calm rational debate,” Mr Ramsey said…….
Mr Ramsey has been a key player in the debate even offering up his own property as a possible site to host the facility before it was deemed a conflict of interest……
Andrew Baldock and his father Graeme nominated 100 hectares of cropping country at Cortlynie outside Kimba to host the nuclear site……
Melanie Woolford who runs Merinos and prime lambs with her husband, kilometres from the proposed site at Pinkawilinie does not share that view. Ms Woolford is concerned the risk of jeopardising the regions clean, green image does not justify the proposed benefits of having a nuclear waste facility in the region.
“It scares me to think what could happen to our kids or our grandchildren, I think we have a right to say no. “It’s good farming land and I don’t understand why you’d want to put it (a nuclear storage facility) in the middle of farming land,” Ms Woolford said.
“I’ve been here for 13 years and I don’t enjoy coming to Kimba anymore, it’s horrible.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-18/nuclear-dump-support-at-kimba-diifficult-to-determine/7181410
Donations to Political parties reap #millions in subsidies to fossil fuel industry
Fossil-fuel industry gets $2,000 in ‘subsidies’ for each $1 in party donations
Activist group 350.org claims fossil-fuel companies’ $3.7m donations to Liberal, National and Labor parties taints the electoral process, Guardian, Michael Slezak 17 Feb 16 Major political parties have receive $3.7m in donations from fossil-fuel companies since the last election, and will deliver $2,000 in subsidies to the industry for every dollar donated, according to a 350.org report.
“The ongoing failure of our politicians to tackle climate change is directly attributable to the political influence of the fossil-fuel industry,” said Blair Palese, the chief executive of 350.org Australia.
“If we are serious about climate solutions, we must end the cosy relationship between our politicians and the big polluters.” (Below donations by mining industries)
The activist organisation has launched the report alongside a campaign asking individual federal politicians to sign a “pollution-free politics pledge”, where they commit to refuse donations from the fossil-fuel industry.
It has already been signed by all federal Greens politicians, independents Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie, and outgoing Labor MPs Melissa Parke and Kelvin Thomson.
A list of those who have signed is being curated by 350.org. Continue reading
Bill Shorten showing his true pro nuclear colours?
Bill Shorten flags shift on nuclear waste storage, THE AUSTRALIAN, Michael Owen, Jared Owens, 16 Feb 16 “……..In a big shift from his position a year ago, when he refused to back South Australia’s nuclear royal commission, the Opposition Leader yesterday signalled the possibility of bipartisan support for the inquiry’s proposal that South Australia store some of the world’s high-level nuclear waste.
The radical plan could not proceed without bipartisan support to change commonwealth laws, with federal Labor viewed as the major roadblock.
Visiting a school in Adelaide yesterday, Mr Shorten said federal Labor supported safe storage of low-level domestic nuclear waste and could be persuaded under the right conditions to consider “getting into the international business of storing other people’s nuclear waste”…….
His remarks dismayed some in the ALP, with the party platform “strongly opposed” to storing of imported nuclear waste.
Melissa Parke, the federal MP for Fremantle, said Labor members were “very passionate” about the platform. “Therefore federal Labor’s response to any proposal to store international high-level nuclear waste must be a resounding ‘no’,” she said.
A year ago, Mr Shorten refused to back South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s establishment of a royal commission to examine whether the state should increase nuclear fuel cycle activities.
In 2013, he quashed a call by Labor MPs for the party to reopen debate about support for a nuclear industry. Another move last year to change the policy was put on hold until the commission delivered its final report to the Weatherill government. This is due on May 6. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-flags-shift-on-nuclear-waste-storage/news-story/ef1280d83926b7c7d10692d5910e15a6
Omigawd! A Senior Labor politician who is Not A Fan of Nuclear!
Albanese ‘cautious’ on SA nuclear proposal 9 News 17 Feb 16 Senior Labor figure Anthony Albanese says he is “very cautious” about a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia’s outback.
This comes after opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated he was open to a royal commission recommendation that SA earn billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs by storing and disposing nuclear waste.
But Labor’s infrastructure spokesman Mr Albanese appears more wary of the proposal, telling 5AA radio “I would be very cautious about it”.
Mr Albanese also said he was “not a fan” of the nuclear fuel cycle and said renewable energies were more economically viable……… http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/17/10/25/albanese-cautious-on-sa-nuclear-proposal#JtxocOdo0XoCmzd1.99
The Nuclear Commission findings do not bode well for Australia’s renewable energy development
The repeal of the carbon price and the stalling of renewable energy development has put Australia on a path to increase emissions to record levels and will likely not reach a peak before 2030.
The nuclear industry is essentially counting on failure on these tasks, and then having some sort of Marshall plan to allow for the extra expense of nuclear generation.
Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 15 February 2016 The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country.
The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining.
On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital.
It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly.
But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Continue reading
Weatherill Democracy in Action – Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Tentative Findings
Only on the question of the importation, storage and disposal of nuclear waste is the inquiry up-front. This is seen as a definite goer. A big bold tick for the world’s unloved and unwanted nuclear waste. Oh, and by the way, this includes fuel originating from SA’s uranium via “fuel leasing”. The plan is to store the waste for over a decade before it is disposed.
This happens to be just the sort of time delay that would allow the setting up of a plant to produce fresh 
uranium fuel from the spent fuel. Another discretely hidden tick, this time for processing.
Dr Dennis Matthews (BSc Hon, PhD), 15 Feb 16 After setting up an inquiry with biased terms of reference, chaired by a person with known sympathies for the nuclear industry, and appointing a committee calculated to support a pro-nuclear agenda, Premier Jay Weatherill now says, with his best poker-face, that this will be a test for democracy.
Well may Jay say that this is a test for democracy, because in setting the test he has bastardised democracy and is now endeavouring to head off any objections. One can almost hear the storm troopers rattling their swords as they look forward to putting down anyone with the temerity to challenge the beloved leader.
The so-called “tentative findings” of Weatherill’s mock democratic consultation are as devious as the man himself.
Weatherill would like us to believe that all he is doing is setting up a nuclear waste industry that will bring untold economic benefits to SA, benefits which the rest of the world seems significantly less eager to embrace, especially those with mature nuclear industries generating this noxious product.
In fact, this travesty of an inquiry is preparing the ground for a full-on nuclear SA with uranium mining, nuclear waste importation, nuclear fuel manufacturing and nuclear power. Continue reading
South Australia is too good to waste.
Today’s Royal Commission ‘Tentative Findings’ report clearly states that nuclear power will not be economically viable. It also says that uranium conversion, uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing are not economically viable. The state’s peak environmental body Conservation Council SA welcomes these findings.
However the report says that South Australia should consider importing international nuclear waste.
“We have had the Royal Commission, now any nuclear waste dump needs South Australia’s permission”, says Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“This is a decision for all South Australians. The issue of genuine acceptance and consent is absolutely critical.
“If we pursue a nuclear waste dump path, we are saying “the best we can do is accept the worst the world has got”. I honestly think we can do better than that.”
An opinion poll commissioned by The Advertiser last year found that less than one in six (15.7%) South Australians support a nuclear waste dump in SA.*
“Now comes the hard part. We’ve had a technocratic, distant process so far – now it turns to real people, real places and real values,” says Mr Wilkins.
“The Royal Commission presents an optimistic view of potential profits from offering Australia as the world’s nuclear waste dump. The Commission acknowledges that nuclear waste needs to be isolated from the environment for “many hundreds of thousands of years” yet there is no attempt to cost the management of waste over those timeframes.
“If there’s one thing we know, the nuclear industry is expert at overstating the benefits and radically understating the costs and risks.
“Ultimately, we think it’s essential that all current and future South Australians should have the freedom to choose. Saying yes to nuclear makes that choice forever, there is no going back.”
Greens: Nuclear Royal Commission findings: It’s all about the dump!
The tentative findings of the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, released this morning tell us what we already know, according to Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
As predicted when the Royal Commission was established – this process is all about softening South Australians up to be the World’s nuclear waste dump.
We’ve known for years that the uranium reprocessing market is “uncertain” and that there is “no opportunity for commercial development” [Royal Commission quotes]. We’ve also known for decades that nuclear power for SA is “not commercially viable … in the foreseeable future” [Royal Commission quotes].
“The outcome of the Royal Commission isn’t at all surprising. The Greens knew that the most likely result of this process was to support South Australia becoming the World’s nuclear waste dump.
However, the Royal Commission’s tentative findings on the nuclear waste dump are based on dubious economics, heroic assumptions and a big dose of guess work. The Commission has identified a problem that lasts hundreds of thousands of years and proposed a solution with income that lasts just a few decades, but with costs lasting virtually forever. If anything goes wrong in the future – we’re on our own.
“The Greens are calling on the Weatherill Labor Government to protect our State’s reputation and not leave our descendants to deal with a toxic future as their legacy.
Previous State Labor Premier Mike Rann fought off a Liberal plan for a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia last decade. The current proposals are far more sinister and dangerous because they involve South Australia taking the most dangerous radioactive waste on the planet.
South Australians will now need to ask themselves and their politicians: “Is this the best future that we can aspire to?”
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 