South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill announces the Terms of Reference for Royal Commission
Nuclear royal commission draft terms of reference announced by SA Premier Jay Weatherill http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-23/nuclear-royal-commission-terms-of-reference-jay-weatherill/6224192 South Australia’s nuclear royal commission is to inquire into enrichment, storage of waste and power generation, but not uranium mining.
The State Government has r
eleased draft terms of reference and announced there would be public consultation until March 13.
Premier Jay Weatherill said the inquiry would focus on three key areas, but the terms of reference had deliberately been kept general.
“These are the broadest possible terms of reference … they won’t be settled for a further week,” he said.
“The only caveats really are the non-military uses will be the only things explored and it’s not our intention to suggest any retreat from the current involvement in uranium mining.”
The Premier said it would be the broadest possible analysis of South Australia’s involvement and potential for future involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
“We think it’s important to go through what is a thorough process of debate and discussion in the community about this important issue,” he said.
When asked if the state were mindful of a looming federal deadline to deal with the issue of nuclear waste storage, he said: “We don’t think this is something that should be rushed.
“The Commonwealth’s been talking about nuclear waste storage for decades so I don’t think our timeline is going to threaten any key decisions.”
Before the year is out, nuclear fuel rods that are being reprocessed by the French are due to be returned to Australia and by 2020 more nuclear waste being reprocessed in the United Kingdom is due to be returned as well.
A Dangerous Farce – South Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission
SA nuclear royal commission a farce, Independent Australia 22 February 2015 The South Australian government’s royal commission into our nuclear future is a farce, and a dangerous farce, warns Noel Wauchope.
FIRST OF ALL, it is not the province of one State to determine by a State royal commission that a nuclear industry should be introduced in Australia. That is a protected issue as a ‘A Matter of National Environmental Significance’ under the National Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Secondly, this royal commission would be a mammoth waste of money for South Australia The cost would run into hundreds of $millions. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was allocated over $434 million in 2013 for its first four years of operation. Given that nuclear issues are the province of national law, not South Australian, this is a totally unnecessary expense.
Thirdly, the ‘public involvement‘ in the terms of reference for this royal commission is a farce in itself. Just look at how this was dealt with by the South Australian government:
8 February:
The announcement was made. Despite the fact that this whole initiative is clearly of national importance, it has received minimal publicity outside Adelaide. The Adelaide Advertiser ran a poll. The Adelaide Advertiser is pretty much regarded as the nuclear lobby’s free propaganda vehicle. No surprise if their readership turns up the required positive result.
9 February:
Consultations began on the Terms of Reference for the royal commission. Premier Jay Weatherill touted nuclear power for climate change action, though he said it was not economically viable. The better options, he said, were importing and storing radioactive waste, and uranium enrichment.
Pro-nuclear former governor, Kevin Scarce, was appointed as “independent” head of the inquiry. No mention of what scientists, etc. might be on the panel.
16 February:
(closing day for comments on the Terms of Reference for the royal commission)
There is no need for a royal commission into the nuclear industry for Australia. Nuclear proponent, Ziggy Switkowski, concluded in the 2006 Switkowski Report that the industry is not economically viable here. Nuclear reactors often far exceed their construction budgets. The last nuclear power plant built in Canada cost AUD$15.1 billion.
Mr. Switkowski predicted the capital cost at $4-6 billion for our first 1000MWe reactor.
However, we already know that, despite some pious statements by Jay Weatherill about nuclear power’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, action on climate change is not the motivator for this new inquiry.
According to a report by The Australian on 10 February 2015:
‘He [Premier Jay Weatherill] said he was open to the prospect of remote parts of the state hosting a nuclear waste deposit but played down the prospect of a power plant being built.
“I think that’s the least likely outcome of the royal commission,” he told ABC radio on Monday.
“I think what’s most likely is that it will be regarded as not viable for either the state or the nation.” ‘
In the same interview on ABC’s The World Today, Weatherill’s enthusiasm for storing the world’s nuclear waste is clear: ……..https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-a-farce,7399
Dirty, Unsafe, Unsound, Uneconomic – yes – that’s the nuclear industry chain
The case to expand the nuclear industry in South Australia and the world is weak. It stands neither on its life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions, nor increased safety, nor economy. New nuclear technologies under construction are far over budget and over time. Future nuclear technologies are not close to being commercially available.
These and other nuclear issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of my bookSustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change.
Uncritical acceptance of the claims of nuclear proponents would set back safer, cleaner, faster and cheaper methods of mitigating climate change.
Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe And Uneconomic: Environmental Scientist https://newmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafe-and-uneconomic-environmental-scientist by Dr Dr Mark Diesendorf , Associate Professor and Deputy Director within the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW..At present there is no market for expanding South Australia’s uranium mining and exports. In 2012, BHP Billiton put on hold its expansion plan for the Olympic Dam uranium-copper mine and since then has shed hundreds of jobs. That there is an excess of uranium enrichment capacity in the world is even acknowledged by the World Nuclear Association.
And, as explained below, wind energy is already much less expensive than nuclear and, on current trends, large solar power stations based on photovoltaic modules will also be cheaper within the 15-year period that it would take to plan and build a nuclear power station in Australia.
We should add to the 15 years the indefinite time-period it would take to gain public acceptance.
Looking beyond South Australia to the world, there seem to be three shaky legs upon which proponents attempt to stand their campaign to expand nuclear energy:
1. Nuclear energy has allegedly no or low greenhouse gas emissions.
2. New nuclear reactor technologies are allegedly safer than the present generation of reactors.
3. New and existing reactors are allegedly cheaper than other low-carbon technologies, notably renewable energy.
Let’s examine these claims. Continue reading
South Australia faces choice of a Renewable or a Radioactive future
Rather than make SA a hub for renewable energy and other sustainable technologies (the state already derives 26 percent of its energy from wind power), the corporate board rooms are determined to press ahead with the most dangerous “alternative” available.
The Murdoch press, which previously defended the state from the imposition of a nuclear waste dump, has changed its tune accordingly. Its pages, usually dominated by climate change denying pens-for-hire, now carry bogus “carbon-free” claims for the water-guzzling, weapons proliferating, tax-payer supported nuclear power industry.
The Australian Financial Review refers to opponents of the nuclear industry as the “loony, left-progressive class”. The same editorial says the locating a dump for the world’s nuclear waste in SA would be an “act of good global citizenship” given that we supply the uranium. The dishonesty of this position is plain. A good global citizen wouldn’t have supplied the uranium in the first place.
A renewable or radioactive future http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2015/1673/02-editorial.html South Australian Premier Jay 
Weatherill’s announcement that there will be a Royal Commission into the extension of the nuclear industry into enrichment, waste storage and nuclear power has rocked the state and sent shock waves across the country.
The Labor Party reversed its anti-uranium mining stance in the 1980s with a promise to limit to three the number of mines extracting and exporting the radioactive material. Kevin Rudd later lifted the cap to five. Widespread security and safety concerns in the community meant that political leaders had to step carefully in advancing the interests of the uranium industry.
Long decades of pressure from the industry via lobbyists, servants in academia, the media and the bureaucracy appear to have changed all that. There have always been advocates of hosting the riskier parts of the nuclear cycle, including nuclear-powered vessels and even nuclear weapons, but their views were considered extreme and hawkish. The SA Premier’s choice of an open-ended Royal Commission to inquire into the matter appears to be an effort to make the impending policy shift appear “scientific”, “arm’s length” and “impartial”. Continue reading
In Lismore a new political party starts off – to tackle climate change
Political party forms in Lismore to tackle climate change Darren Coyne, Echo Net Daily, 19 Feb 15, A new political party focused on tackling climate change is being formed by a group of north coast residents. The Renewable Energy Party plans to stand candidates in every state and territory at the next Federal election in 2016.
Following a meeting at the Lismore Worker’s Club this week, the political hopefuls announced they were in the process of signing up the 500 members required to form the party.
Campaign manager Jim Moylan said membership was not likely to be a problem. ‘Aussies are really passionate about climate change,’ Mr Moylan said.‘Our Facebook page has gone-off like a skyrocket. All we did was set up a news-feed to climate change news – and a big audience appeared.’
Mr Moylan told Echonetdaily that the micro-party would act as ‘better angels’ to The Greens and other left-leaning parties……..
Party founder Peter Breen, a former independent member of the New South Wales Parliament, and a former member of both Labor and the Liberal parties, will be national coordinator of the party. Mr Breen, a resident of Byron Bay, said the party had good prospects.‘Of course they will take us seriously. We are well funded, well organised and mainstream,’ Mr Breen said.
‘We have advertising people, political insiders, fund-raisers, social media specialists and other professionals.
‘The Renewable Energy Party wants science and the public interest to dictate the terms of the climate debate – not coal, gas and oil companies.’
Following the Lismore meeting, the fledging party released the following statement.
‘Renewable energy needs grass roots representation. More than a million households in Australia now use solar energy and we are getting a very bad deal from the major energy companies who all own coal mines.
‘Currently, Australians are paying as much as $1,000 per year for electricity and gas connections – before we even turn on our appliances. On top of that, the major energy companies pay 6 to 8 cents for solar power exported to the grid while charging four times that amount for customers to buy it back”
‘In the UK, politicians are talking seriously about phasing out fossil fuels, but Australian politicians are talking about phasing out renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Party hopes to bring a consumer’s perspective to the debate in Australia.’
‘The Renewable Energy Party will speak on behalf of the many Australians who believe that climate change is simply the most important issue we face. We support the 97 per cent of climate scientists who say man-made climate change is real and we need to do something serious about the predicted global temperature rise.
‘According to the International Monetary Fund, Australia’s implicit subsidies to oil, coal and gas companies are worth 1.8 per cent of GDP, or about $23 billion annually. Subsidies to the renewable energy industry are small beer by comparison.
‘The Renewable Energy Party has been formed to highlight the differences between the favourable treatment given to the fossil fuel industries by government and the difficulties faced by the emerging renewable energy industry.
‘It is also a fact that renewable energy creates more jobs per unit of energy delivered than fossil or nuclear fuels. Action on climate change is our best hope for better present and a more promising future,’ the statement concluded.http://www.echo.net.au/2015/02/political-party-forms-lismore-tackle-climate-change/
New Australian Political Party coming – the Renewable Energy Party
Renewable Energy Party Seeking Australian Federal Registration http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/renewable-energy-party-em4693/ A new political party is committed to an Australia powered by 100% renewable energy by 2050 and to scrutinising the fossil fuel industry’s gravy train of subsidies.
The Renewable Energy Party’s founder is Peter Breen. Mr Breen is a defamation and media lawyer and former member of the New South Wales Parliament (Legislative Council), the Labor and the Liberal parties.
According to the party’s constitution, two of its objectives are:
“a. To encourage and promote the use of renewable energy in Australia and to determine what regulatory changes, incentives, bonuses, subsidies and other forms of investment opportunity need to be given to the energy industry to enable all energy sources in Australia to be 100 per cent renewable by 2050.
b. To review the government subsidies and other public funding paid or tax and excise revenues foregone annually to oil, gas and coal companies in Australia to ascertain whether the funds would be better directed to different companies in order to achieve objective (a) above.”
The Renewable Energy Party aims to have some of the $23 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies paid annually to oil, gas and coal companies redirected to renewable energy. The support fossil fuel industries currently enjoy is equivalent to 1.8 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product.
Driving the campaign to recruit the number of members required for Federal registration is James Moylan. Mr. Moylan has been involved with minor parties and political lobbying for many years.
We have the ability, right now, to reinvent the way we generate, store and utilise energy,” says Mr. Moylan. ” We can, as human beings, reduce our impact on the planet, and repair the damage already done. And because we can do it, we are obliged to do it, for ourselves and for our children.”
According to comments made by Mr. Moylan following a RenewEconomy article on the party, the REP knows it will never run a government.
“Smaller parties such as the REP are there to help the Greens (and the rest of the Parties) stay in contact with the aspirations of the people and keep faith with their own promises.”
The party will strive to have candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election.
South Australian Labor – a nuclear waste dump to fix money problems?
Isn’t that just a lovely idea? Have South Australia’s labor politicians no brains? It”s like advocating cigarette smoking in order to fix obesity ( an idea I pinched from that great South Australian, Dr Helen Caldicott)
Labor eyed outback nuclear waste ‘windfall’ to wipe out state debt http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/labor-eyed-outback-nuclear-waste-windfall-to-wipe-out-state-debt/story-e6frgczx-1227224599605 Michael Owen SA Bureau Chief ADELAIDE Sarah Martin Political ReporterThe revelation comes after Premier Jay Weatherill last week announced a royal commission into nuclear power, saying it was time for a “mature” discussion about the potential to expand the state’s role in the fuel cycle.
However, the most senior South Australian Liberal, Christopher Pyne, yesterday rejected Mr Weatherill’s inquiry, putting him at odds with Tony Abbott.
“We have all the energy we need here in Australia … whether it’s coal energy — I do not support an extension to nuclear energy,” the Education Minister told ABC radio.
The Prime Minister has backed the royal commission, saying Mr Weatherill had offered “a gale of common sense”.
Mr Weatherill was Premier when then employment minister Tom Kenyon presented the “silver bullet” proposal to a cabinet planning day, arguing that a pro-nuclear policy to build on the state having one of the world’s largest uranium mines, Olympic Dam, would turn around the state’s finances. It flags the problems of spiralling debt of more than $10 billion, “no sign of a turnaround in budget” and flagging confidence in the economic future of the state as reasons for building a nuclear storage facility.
“Rather than suffering a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ in the lead up to 2014, a single decision could turn the budget on its head,” the document says.
A series of bilateral deals with targeted nations such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the US are flagged to provide “an unprecedented revenue windfall” in exchange for taking thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste.
“It is proposed this windfall be used to wipe out state debt, and implement a state infrastructure fund to enable a huge program of building works to drive the economy and deliver a boom to the state well in excess of any ‘mining boom’,” the report says.
Hosting Australia’s low-level waste would be conditional on allowing imported waste — a “non-negotiable aspect of the arrangement”.
Yesterday, Mr Kenyon — who remains a backbench MP — said all ministers received the November 2012 document, but he would not comment on cabinet deliberations.
“I think it has a lot of potential for the economy and I will certainly be putting that to the royal commission,” he said.
Mr Weatherill told The Australian yesterday that Mr Kenyon had been a “long-time advocate for increased involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle”.
“There are many views both in the Labor Party and in the wider community on this issue and I would ask anyone interested to make a submission to the royal commission,” Mr Weatherill said.
Mr Kenyon’s proposal raises the idea of locating the storage facility at sites previously earmarked by the commonwealth for a nuclear dump site, despite these being fiercely opposed by former Labor premier Mike Rann in 2004
South Australia goes against global trends in the declining nuclear industry
Given the SA Premier has stated that he thinks building a nuclear power plant in SA is the “least likely” outcome of the Royal Commission, it is fair to assume the bigger agenda here is to soften the ground for a high level nuclear waste dump.
Professor John Veevers from Macquarie University – “Tonnes of enormously dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000kms from its destined dump in Australia where it must remain intact for at least 10,000 years. These magnitudes of tonnage, lethality, distance of transport, and time − entail great inherent risk.”
South Australia Out Of Step With Global Trends On Nuclear Energy:
Environmentalists https://newmatilda.com/2015/02/14/south-australia-out-step-global-trends-nuclear-energy-environmentalists By Dave Sweeney and 
Jim Green In New Matilda’s ongoing debate around nuclear energy, Dave Sweeney (l) and Jim Green (rt) make their case against nuclear power.
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s surprise announcement of a Royal Commission to examine opening the door to an expanded nuclear industry in South Australia is out of step with the trend of the global nuclear trade, risks undermining the reality and potential of the state’s renewable energy sector and increases pressure on South Australia to host an international radioactive waste dump.
The timing is odd, coming against a backdrop of a further 300 job cuts at BHP’s Olympic Dam uranium mine and the news that in 2014 Australia ripped and shipped less uranium – the fuel stock for all things nuclear – than for any of the past 16 years. Continue reading
Concern that the Nuclear Royal Commission is really about a radioactive trash import business
MARK PARNELL: Giving one week is a ludicrous short time frame.
NATALIE WHITING: The Premier, Jay Weatherill, has said he thinks it would be more likely that the commission recommend the establishment of a waste dump rather than power station.
Craig Wilkins from Conservation SA says that’s concerning.
CRAIG WILKINS: The only real market gap in the nuclear cycle is around receiving the world’s top nuclear waste. Certainly nuclear power and nuclear enrichment are just not feasible in the short term in our state. So that’s a big conversation. So I suppose part of our concern is that this inquiry is a bit of a Trojan horse for that agenda.
NATALIE WHITING: He says it has been difficult getting a submission up in the time frame
AUDIO Nuclear Royal Commission moves forward in SA MARK COLVIN: A royal commission is the biggest, most thorough, but often most expensive way Australia has of investigating an issue. ABC Radio P.M.
But in South Australia, just a week after the surprise announcement that of a royal commission into developing a nuclear industry, submissions on what the terms of reference should be are already closing. There’s been some criticism of that short time frame. Continue reading
Dr Jim Green – The SA Royal Commission and uranium enrichment
Nuclear non-starter: Oversupplied, losing money and without a constituency, Climate Spectator, JIM GREEN 16 Feb 15 “… South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill announced a Royal Commission on February 8 to investigate options to expand the state’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle beyond uranium mining. There is some hope that a value-adding enrichment industry could compensate for the weakened uranium mining industry.
But the 2006 Switkowski report found that there was no realistic prospect of an enrichment industry in Australia, due to overcapacity at enrichment plants around the world. The SA Royal Commission will reach the same conclusion. Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd noted in Nuclear Engineering International in July 2014 that “the world enrichment market is heavily over-supplied”.
There are other reasons to be concerned about uranium enrichment … though it hardly matters given that it is an economic non-starter. Australia’s involvement in enrichment R&D began in 1965 with the ‘Whistle Project‘ in the basement of Building 21 at Lucas Heights, then run by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Those in the know were supposed to whistle as they walked past Building 21 and say nothing about the enrichment R&D. Why the secrecy? Because enrichment provides a direct path to nuclear weapons.
Forty years later, John Howard was likening uranium enrichment to value-adding to the wool industry. Perhaps Lucas Heights also had a secret program to knit woollen garments? Or perhaps not.
The enrichment R&D was publicly revealed in the Atomic Energy Commission’s 1967-68 Annual Report and plodded along until it was terminated in the mid-1980s. Nuclear power was growing steadily from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, yet Australia didn’t come close to establishing an enrichment industry. It’s hardly likely to happen when nuclear power capacity is stagnant, when the enrichment market is heavily over-supplied, when there is growing international momentum to curb the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies (enrichment and reprocessing), and when the atomic bomb lobby is far smaller and weaker than it was in the mid-1960s.
Clutching at straws, enrichment lobbyists argue that an Australian enrichment industry could supply nuclear power reactors in Southeast Asia. That argument would carry more weight if there were any power reactors in Southeast Asia.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/2/16/energy-markets/nuclear-non-starter-oversupplied-losing-money-and-without
How come Tony Abbott is regarded as silly on everything else, but not on nuclear power?
Now why didn’t the mainstream media greet this one with a gale of laughter
South Australia’s nuclear inquiry is ‘a gale of commonsense’, Tony Abbott says Prime 
minister backs debate on use of nuclear energy in Australia and says: ‘If it’s right to mine it, why can’t it be right to use it?’ – http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/15/south-australias-nuclear-inquiry-is-a-gale-of-commonsense-tony-abbott-says 15 Feb15
Australia’s peak medical research agency put under pressure about wind farms
NSW, Victorian health officials objected to federal wind farm study conclusion, February 14, 2015 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Australia’s peak medical research agency recommended additional research into the effects of wind farms on health based on the “macro policy environment” rather than the scientific report they commissioned, ignoring objections from senior officials in the NSW and Victorian governments.
The NHMRC ought to be able to provide advice to government without fear or prejudice, but I’m not sure that it can
Peter Doherty, Nobe Prize winning researcher
According to emails seen by Fairfax Media, public health officers in the two states wanted the final statement accompanying the release of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s latest report on wind farms “to make it clear that the total available evidence (parallel and direct) suggest[s] little health risk.”……….
It is understood that the reference group of scientists that conducted the review did not get to review the statement.
The emails raise more doubts over the conclusions of the study ordered by the Abbott government, with the underlying report citing 1500 metres and three kilometres as possible distances of concern. So-called wind farm syndrome has been reported by some residents near turbines, with sleep deprivation, headaches and other effects reported.
“The NHMRC ought to be able to provide advice to government without fear or prejudice, but I’m not sure that it can,” Peter Doherty, a Nobel Prize-winning researcher, said…….
Greens senator Richard Di Natale said he was shocked at what appeared to be political interference.
“It’s scandalous and I’ll be following it up in the next Senate estimates. There’s a real concern here that we’re politicising what should be an independent science review.”
Higher priorities for the estimated $500,000 in funds to be allocated for the wind farm research include cancer, diabetes and many other subjects, Senator Di Natale said…….
Bruce Armstrong, chair of the study, said concerns over wind farm noise had “not come up through the normal scientific process.” http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-victorian-health-officials-objected-to-federal-wind-farm-study-conclusion-20150213-13e8go.html
Crikey explores the purpose of a Royal Commission into Nuclear Power
Crikey clarifier: why is a royal commission investigating nuclear power? http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/13/crikey-clarifier-why-is-a-royal-commission-investigating-nuclear-power/ by Crikey Intern The South Australian Labor government has called for Australia’s first royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle, raising questions about the use of nuclear power. Royal commissions are mostly held to explore issues and events that have already taken place, so it is unusual that a royal commission has been appointed to analyse the case for nuclear power. Why a royal commission? And is that really the proper forum to investigate the potential use of nuclear power?
Why is a royal commission being used instead of a normal inquiry process?
A royal commission is a form of “public inquiry” where government-appointed bodies provide advice on or investigate an issue. Royal commissions are used to analyse issues of high importance or controversy, and they can last for several years.
The royal commission itself follows a recent call by Julie Bishop for a renewed discussion about nuclear power, as she says it is an “obvious direction” for reducing greenhouse emissions.
The infamous nuclear disasters that took place in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have made people wary of nuclear power, and there is concern nuclear power stations could be “potential targets for terrorist attacks”.
Energy expert Mike Sandiford told Crikey the “irrationality in nuclear debate” requires a mature discussion. Continue reading
Victoria’s Green Party has plan for boosting Renewable Energy
Victorian Greens to use renewable energy group as bargaining chip with Labor http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-greens-to-use-renewable-energy-group-as-bargaining-chip-with-labor-20150211-13bzxm.html February 11, 2015 Richard Willingham State Political Correspondent for The Age The findings of a new Victorian renewable energy group to improve the sector will be used by the Greens as a bargaining chip in upper house negotiations with the Labor government.
The Greens have invited industry and experts to help tackle Victoria’s low investment in renewable energy, under a Greens plan.
Last year the Climate Council found that Victoria had the least favourable regulatory conditions of any Australian state for renewable energy.
Greens Melbourne MP Ellen Sandell is hosting a meeting next month with experts from the sector to address the state’s poor performance and has invited Premier Daniel Andrews and Industry Minister Lily D’Ambrosio. Both said they would not be attending.
The Greens, who hold five critical upper house votes, say the roundtable will produce a plan for how to bring jobs in clean energy to Victoria, accusing Labor of having no real plan for the sector at last year’s election.
Ms Sandell, who is energy spokeswoman, said the roundtable and its findings could be used as a bargaining chip in upper house negotiations.
“We have always said we will use our power to get the best outcomes for climate change and renewables however, we can. I’m starting by bringing renewables experts together and I hope the Premier listens to their recommendations,” Ms Sandell said.
“Despite incredible wind and solar resources, we have the most restrictive policy environment in the country, making it the worst place in Australia to invest in new energy sources.”
“As a result, we have the second lowest renewable energy capacity per capita of all of the states. Something has to change, and I’m determined to make it happen.”
Ben Courtice from Yes2Renewables said uncertainty around Australia’s renewable energy target had stalled investment in large-scale renewable energy projects.
“There is a real role for state governments to keep renewable energy’s share of our electricity use growing and sustain the industry into the future,” Mr Courtice said.
Invitations have been sent to Infigen, Solar Council, Metro Solar, Keppel Prince, local universities and Environment Victoria.
South Australian government continues to promote uranium industry, despite its gloomy market situation
SA Govt to give Uranium One green light for exploring new sites in state’s north-east, ABC News By Gavin Coote 13 feb 15 The owner of Honeymoon mine in South Australia’s north-east is set to be granted three new uranium exploration licenses in the region.
Honeymoon has been mothballed for 15 months but Uranium One was successful in an application to explore in three sites near the existing mine, 75 kilometres north-west of Broken Hill.
It came as the State Government planned to hold an inquiry into the potential opportunities that could come from the state’s expanding nuclear energy industry.
The SA Department of State Development said Uranium One put forward a strong case to play a part in future discoveries.
The Department’s Mineral Resources executive director Ted Tyne said the exploration licences would be finalised in the next few weeks…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-12/sa-govt-expected-to-give-uranium-one-green-light-to-explore-new/6087340
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 