Family First Senator Bob Day gets Senate support for SA nuclear commission
Senate backs SA nuclear commission http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/senate-backs-sa-nuclear-commission/story-fni0xqi4-1227268345280 AAP MARCH 18, 2015
THE Senate has backed South Australia’s royal commission into expanding the nuclear industry.
SA Premier Jay Weatherill launched a royal commission to investigate if the state, home to world’s largest uranium deposits, should embrace production, enrichment and storage of nuclear power.
SA Family First senator Bob Day won enough Senate support to formally welcome the commission, with his motion passing 34 to 33.
Nuclear Royal Commission will ignore the elephant in the room
| 20 Mar 15, The biggest hole in the nuclear Royal Commission isn’t the proposed open cut pit at Olympic Dam, but rather the omission of any consideration as to whether South Australia should be LESS involved in the nuclear industry, rather than MORE involved, according to Greens SA State Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“Despite the Premier’s assurance that he has an “open mind”, the most fundamental question of SA’s role in the global nuclear industry won’t be considered at all. The Royal Commission is only charged with considering NEW ADDITIONAL involvement or expanding our existing involvement; it won’t be looking at whether SA should extract itself entirely from the nuclear cycle.” said Mark Parnell. “If you don’t ask all the questions, you won’t get all the answers. “Clearly, there are many South Australians who are opposed to South Australia’s involvement in the nuclear cycle. With our natural advantages and nation-leading performance in wind and solar, South Australians see that the future is to embrace clean renewable energy, rather than flirting with dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear power. Becoming the nation’s or world’s nuclear waste dump is not most people’s vision for our State’s future or the legacy that we want to leave our children.”
Now that the Royal Commission is underway, the next critical decisions will be around the selection of key staff including “Counsel assisting the Royal Commission” and any technical or other research staff. “Choosing people who are partisan or have vested interests will be seen by the public as evidence of a biased process and the credibility of any findings will be diminished.” The Royal Commission also needs to announce how it intends to conduct its inquiry, including opportunities for personal submissions, public hearings, site visits and how all South Australians can engage with the process. “The Greens will engage with the process, but we won’t hesitate to publicly criticise the Royal Commission if it becomes secretive, biased or otherwise limits the ability of South Australians to have their say on their State’s future.” said Mr Parnell. |
1000 submissions to S. Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission. Kevin Scarce accused of pro nuclear bias
Nuclear royal commissioner officially appointed, denies bias ABC Radio National PM 19 Mar 15 DAVID MARK: The newly appointed royal commissioner for investigating the nuclear industry in South Australia says he is not biased towards the industry. The former South Australian governor, Kevin Scarce, has been accused of speaking in favour of the industry in the past.
The royal commission officially started today.
Mr Scarce says the commission will hold public hearings around the state. In Adelaide, Natalie Whiting reports.
NATALIE WHITING: In the lead up to the start of South Australia’s royal commission into developing a nuclear industry, there has been some criticism of the man selected to lead it. Some people opposing the inquiry, including Doctor Jim Green from Friends of the Earth Australia, say former governor Kevin Scarce had spoken out in favour of the industry before.
He was officially given the role of commissioner today and has hit back at those suggestions……..
Craig Wilkins from the Conservation Council has welcomed that.
CRAIG WILKINS: We actually do have a significant history already in this industry and it’s really important that if the commission is to do its work properly it considers where we’ve come from as well as where we’re going. So we very strongly welcome the fact that the terms of reference have been broadened to include that history.
NATALIE WHITING: But he says he would have liked the terms to also look at minimising the state’s involvement in the industry. South Australia already mines uranium.
CRAIG WILKINS: Surely any decent investigation of an industry should mean that all options are on the table. If there are concerns, which many people do have concerns already with this industry, surely this commission should be looking at what our appropriate role should be in it and that may well be a reduction rather than an increase.
NATALIE WHITING: Kevin Scarce says that has been ruled out……
Weatherill’s Royal Commission hides the connection between nuclear industry and nuclear weapons
Dennis Matthews, 20 Mar 15 It’s not difficult to find out that the world’s nuclear waste is not neatly segregated into “military” and “non-military”. The processes that create the waste, such as separating out the various isotopes of uranium, chemical processing prior to this separation, and the processing of spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors all occur at facilities that service both the nuclear weapons and the nuclear power industries.
Weatherill’s Royal Commission has been charged with looking into importing nuclear waste but has been explicitly told not to include nuclear use for military or defence purposes. If the Commission doesn’t study the close physical connection between the military and non-military uses then it is closing its mind to one of the reasons why South Australia shouldn’t have anything to do with the nuclear industry.
It’s pretty obvious that Weatherill and the nuclear lobby don’t want to look into this because it would inevitably lead to a result that they don’t want to know about. More the pity for South Australia.
South Australian govt starts Royal Commission into Nuclear (it’s a CHAIN not a CYCLE)
Dennis Matthews 20 Mar 15 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is full of contradictions and political spin
Surely if there was a fuel cycle then we wouldn’t need a nuclear waste dump. In fact it is a nuclear fuel chain; dig it up, process it, use it, then dump the wastes in some cash-strapped state.
The terms of reference explicitly state that the military use of uranium is excluded. Yet a former high-ranking member of the military who is sympathetic to the nuclear industry is the commissioner.
The commissioner has urged people to keep an open mind but the terms of reference state that the commission can’t do that because it can only look at expanding the nuclear industry and not the opposite.
It is claimed that the commission will not recommend sites for a nuclear dump but it will investigate whether South Australia has suitable geography. So it won’t be in your backyard but it might be in the valley down the road.
The royal commissioner said any consideration of reducing nuclear industry involvement had been ruled out by the SA Government.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission makes formal start in SA ABC News 19 Mar 15 Public hearings in remote Aboriginal communities are expected to be part of a royal commission in South Australia into nuclear energy issues. Governor Hieu Van Le has signed off to mark the official start of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which is expected to make its recommendations to the SA Government by May next year.
It will examine a range of issues including whether the state should have a nuclear power station or
nuclear waste dump.
Former governor Kevin Scarce will head the inquiry. Continue reading
VIDEO: Greens’ Larissa Waters strongly defends current Renewable Energy Target
Greens savage Labor over RET deal http://media.theage.com.au/news/federal-politics/greens-savage-labor-over-ret-deal-6366253.html A report that shows power companies are the worst polluters underscores the need to retain the renewable energy target in its current form says Greens environment spokesperson Larissa Waters.
Poor uranium market, and Labor policy – French nuclear giant AREVA not to explore in Queensland
French abandon Far North uranium prospects DANIEL BATEMAN THE CAIRNS POST MARCH 18, 2015 ONE of the world’s largest uranium producers is pulling out of the Far North following the State Government’s renewed ban on uranium mining.
Areva Resources Australia has confirmed it is in the process of relinquishing its 
exploration projects in Queensland on “technical” grounds.
Minister for State Development, Natural Resources and Mines Anthony Lynham has said a statewide prohibition will once again be put in place over uranium mining, forcing several companies to shelve development plans.
Areva had been exploring in the Karumba and Carpentaria basins since about 2012.
Areva Resources Australia managing director Joe Potter said the company would not be applying for new exploration tenements in Queensland in the near future, in light of the recent state policy changes and general downturn in the uranium market…….
Australian Conservation Foundation Northern Australia program officer Andrew Picone welcomed the return of a ban and the departure of Areva.
“The fact that Areva have pulled up stumps in Queensland’s Gulf only illustrates the market’s global contraction,’’ he said. http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/french-abandon-far-north-uranium-prospects/story-fnjpusdv-1227266987603
New South Wales’s Labor plans to turn Hunter Valley into a renewable energy hub
NSW election 2015: Turning Hunter into a renewable energy hub http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2953110/turning-the-hunter-into-a-renewable-energy-hub/?cs=12 By MATTHEW KELLY March 18, 2015 THE Labor Party would invest $14 million to help the Hunter become a renewable energy hub, if elected to government.Labor leader Luke Foley said expanding the renewable energy sector was a key component of the party’s plan to combat climate change. Other components of the plan include keeping the state’s electricity network in public hands and legislating for a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.
It would also invest $37.4 million to replace florescent and incandescent lighting with LED technology in hospitals. It is estimated this would cut power bills by about $72.6 million over 15 years.
‘‘We will focus on obtaining a greater share of our energy needs from renewable sources, which will help address the threat to our environment,’’ Mr Foley said.
‘‘As a state, we must pursue greater energy efficiency and cleaner energy sources.’’
Labor ‘s demands for decision on Renewable Energy Target
Shorten Demands Renewable Energy Target Resolution http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/shorten-renewable-energy-em4729/ March 17, 2015 Labor leader Bill Shorten has called on the Liberal Government to resolve the impasse over Australia’s Renewable Energy Target within the next two weeks.
“Since Tony Abbott launched his ambush on renewable energy early last year, Australia’s renewable energy industry has been in crisis,” said Mr. Shorten.
“Something has to happen this fortnight otherwise jobs will go – and Labor is simply not prepared to see that happen.”
Unfortunately, jobs have already gone, with the latest example reported on RenewEconomy just yesterday. According to RenewEconomy’s Giles Parkinson, one of the largest renewable energy developers in Australia, Pacific Hydro, is cutting staff numbers by as much as 25 per cent.
The outcomes of a meeting between Labor and representatives from industry, investors and unions yesterday reinforced Labor’s position on the RET. Labor is demanding that the Small-scale Renewable Scheme (SRES), which provides support for the installation of residential and commercial solar power systems must remain as it currently operates, with a commitment to no policy changes.
The party also wants the removal of current legislated review processes, with the next review to occur for post-2020 renewables. The RET has been subject to ongoing reviews and this is contributing to investor uncertainty.
Labor also wants a commitment to a mid to high 30,000 gigawatt hours Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and more controversially, a 100% exemption to all emissions intensive and trade exposed sectors .
“The future of this industry is too important to fall victim to the Government’s ongoing chaos,” said Mr. Shorten. “The Government’s only position has been to drive investment out of the country and as a result, increase electricity prices and pollution.”
Investment in large-scale renewable energy projects in Australia last year was down 88 per cent to just $240 million – the worst levels we have seen for more than ten years. Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive places to invest in renewable energy in 2013. Less than two years later, the country is now ranked 10th.
On a related topic, the annual share of coal fired generation in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) rose again to reach 74.7 per cent in the year to January 2015. Coal use and related emissions have been rising since the axing of the carbon tax. “Renewable energy is a critical part of the Australia’s future energy mix and key ingredient for economic growth,” said Mr. Shorten. “Labor’s position seeks to lay the foundation for a viable renewable energy industry not just to 2020 but beyond.”
Nuclear lobby putting pressure on Queensland government
Lobby groups asks for consultation on uranium ban, Brisbane Times March 15, 2015 Amy Remeikis Queensland state political reporter Fairfax Media revealed on Saturday that Labor intended on sticking to its long-held policy on uranium mining and would reverse the 2012 decision by the Newman government to lift it.
But the Queensland Resources Council, which originally had declined to comment on the measure, was moved to issue a statement on Sunday, asking for consultation.
“Before rushing to a decision, we would ask the government to consult the QRC and companies with uranium interests on its intentions concerning uranium,” it said in its statement……http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lobby-groups-asks-for-consultation-on-uranium-ban-20150315-144dpo.html
South Australian voters reject expansion of nuclear industry
Voters reject Premier Jay Weatherill’s agenda to transform the state, Adelaide Advertiser PAUL STARICK THE ADVERTISER MARCH 13, 2015 A majority of respondents reject plans to switch South Australia’s time zone, downgrade hospital emergency departments, create more “super” schools, expand the nuclear industry and overhaul tax…….
Key findings of the survey, which involved people being interviewed at numerous times and locations across metropolitan Adelaide and regional SA, were:
ALMOST 70 per cent opposed furthering SA’s role in the nuclear industry, including a power station, waste dump or enrichment facility…..
Nuclear waste storage banned by law in South Australia
South Australia Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 An Act to prohibit the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in South Australia; and for other purposes.
—Objects of Act The objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.
nuclear waste means— (a) Category A, Category B or Category C radioactive waste as defined in the Code of Practice; or (b) any waste material that contains a radioactive substance and is derived from— (i) the operations or decommissioning of— (A) a nuclear reactor; or (B) a nuclear weapons facility; or (C) a radioisotope production facility; or (D) a uranium enrichment plant; or (ii) the testing, use or decommissioning of nuclear weapons; or (iii) the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel;
nuclear waste storage facility means any installation for the storage or disposal of nuclear waste; public authority has the same meaning as in the Environment Protection Act 1993; radioactive substance means any substance that spontaneously emits ionizing radiation. 5—Act binds Crown This Act binds the Crown in right of the State and, in so far as the legislative power of the State permits, in all its other capacities……..
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, 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……
Hans-Peter Schnelboegl’s submission on draft Terms of Reference for Nuclear Royal Commission
the Royal Commission itself may act in breach of the “Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act” by promoting radioactive waste storage in SA.
Submission on draft Terms of Reference to the SA Royal Commission on our role in nuclear energy
The draft Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission are heavily leaning in favour of new nuclear ventures rather than investigating the issue impartially:
The first paragraph includes supportive phrases like:
“whether there is any potential for the expansion”
”any circumstances necessary for such an increase”
“opportunities created by expanding”
“the measures that might be required to facilitate and regulate that
increase in activity”
This is balanced by just one cautious phrase:
“any risks … created by expanding”
The other paragraphs of the draft ToR’s show a similar imbalance.
I request that the ToR’s be expanded to explicitly include
Precautionary Principle
Intergenerational Equity
Long-term Consequences
Public and Workers’ Health
Impacts on Freedom and Democracy
Nuclear versus Alternative energy sources – comparison of cost and risks
The reasons are in short:
It is well known that the nuclear industry involves severe dangers from radiation exposure. Radiation can not be perceived by any of the human senses. The health consequences of exposure to radiation are,
in most cases, experienced much later when no connection to the exposure is drawn.
Furthermore, nuclear ventures are characterised by the potential for severest nuclear accidents and incidents like The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of inhabitants were incinerated in an instant or slowly died from burns, cancers …
The explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. Scientists using mainly epidemiological data have shown that by 2004 already 1 million people had died from the consequences of the accident. This number is growing.
The meltdown of four Fukushima reactors fuelled by Australian uranium.
The resulting contamination of our oceans, especially the Pacific Ocean, is steadily increasing.
Uranium mining in Australia has a deadly impact on mine workers, nearby residents and, most of all, on future generations.
For decades Australian governments have refused to establish a database for uranium mine workers’ health, and the currently partially established database seems skewed like the draft terms of this Royal
Commission.
It seems mining companies are now using highly sensitive blood tests to detect cancers and weakened defences against cancers early, and then simply terminate employment.
Much worse than the impact on mine workers will be the impact on future generations using contaminated groundwater and/or being exposed to radioactive dust storms dispersing the fine radioactive materials in tailings dams.
This is compounded by the fact that the hazards of radiation and the proper maintenance of radiation hot spots will be forgotten within a few hundred years. Already today local kids and tourists are swimming in contaminated mining dams.
The Impacts on Freedom and Democracy stem mainly from the strong public opposition to any nuclear industries and the subsequent attempts by governments to quell that opposition.
This happened when the French government developed its vast nuclear industry: Widespread opposition and protests were suffocated by horrendous police brutality permanently damaging French democracy.
In South Australia, police brutality led to the locking up of peaceful protesters in a shipping container at the Beverley uranium mine site – in full sun, for hours without water and toilets. This resulted in a
million dollar court verdict against the South Australian government, i.e. the SA taxpayer.
Those responsible for ignoring the public’s opposition to uranium mining and approving the hazardous mine, for brutally suffocating peaceful protests with methods akin to torture, they were neither jailed nor fined.
Another SA example of destructive impacts of nuclear industries on freedom and democracy is the special status of the Olympic Dam mine: A number of public rights have been suspended for the mine.
For example FoI: The SA government is not allowed to pass on information from the mine without the consent of the mine. This is highly relevant when it comes to the frequent accidents and incidents
at the site. I remember two major fires of very large storage ponds for used process chemicals (kerosene and the like) and numerous pipes resulting in a plum of thick smoke passing over SA. There was very
little or no reliable information available about the radioactive contents of the smoke.
Further, Aboriginal heritage protection and certain environmental regulations have been suspended for the Olympic Dam uranium mine.
And finally, the Royal Commission itself may act in breach of the “Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act” by promoting radioactive waste storage in SA.
Queensland Labor says NO to uranium mining
Labor says no to uranium mining in Queensland, Brisbane Times, Amy Remeikis Queensland state political reporter 14 Mar 15 Labor plans on scuttling a Queensland industry before it even begins.
The Newman Government announced it would overturn the long-time ban on uranium mining in 2012 and opened applications in August 2014.
Queensland’s Mary Kathleen Mine, near Mount Isa, closed in 1982, seven years before uranium mining was banned in the state……..
a spokesman for the new government said uranium mining would once again be kiboshed in Queensland.
Andrew Cripps ( Mines Minister in the previous Liberal government) said it would not have any impact.
“The Department of Natural Resources and Mines has not received one single application for a uranium mining lease since the previous LNP government’s regulatory framework for uranium mining started on 31 July 2014,” he said……………http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/labor-says-no-to-uranium-mining-in-queensland-20150313-143pzi.html
South Australian Liberal Senator Sean Edwards promises $billions for accepting the world’s radioactive trash
Dr. Jim Green, from Friends of the Earth, Australia attended the protest and told ABC radio that he was there to for two reasons. To lend his sympathy to the 160,000 Japanese who remain displaced from the Fukishima disaster and to send a message to the government that they’re “not happy about the terms of reference” of the inquiry.
The inquiry’s terms of reference will focus on uranium enrichment, nuclear generation and waste storage. Opponents of nuclear energy say the focus of the inquiry is disproportionately skewed towards the positive financial benefits without adequately accounting for the dangers.
Dr. Green would like to see uranium mining and previous nuclear programs such as Radium Hill and the Port Perry Uranium processing site included in the inquiry. Both sites sit deserted and serve as a reminder to Dr. Green of the perils of nuclear power.
So with just a single day left for the public to submit their opinion on the issue, perhaps it’s worth asking the question: At what price should we be willing to become a nuclear dumping ground?
Royal commission is set the debate a proposed plan from SA senator to expand nuclear industry http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/royal-commission-is-set-the-debate-a-proposed-plan-from-sa-senator-to-expand-nuclear-industry/story-e6frflp0-1227259822071 MARCH 12, 2015 FREE power, no payroll tax and no motor vehicle tax.
Sounds pretty great, right? That is what South Australian Senator, Sean Edwards is touting if the state expands its nuclear energy industry.
According to the Liberal senator, the state would be able to access ten of billions of dollars from the global nuclear industry if they are allowed to store rods and nuclear waste from other countries.
“The science is in. The process is proven and we have a first mover advantage which would see us generate wealth akin to being the Saudis of the South,” he told the Adelaide Advertiser.
The senator believes it would turn South Australia into a “special economic zone” which would further attract business investment.
Mr. Edwards has thrown his weight behind the project. He has reportedly met with countries interested in partnering with the state government and has briefed Trade Minister Andrew Robb and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane on the details. All while promising huge economic incentives to the people of his state. Continue reading
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 