Antinuclear

The Coalition is hoodwinking Australia about nuclear energy

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is expected to make rescinding the nuclear power prohibition a 2025 election policy. One expert wonders whether he can do basic sums.

EMMA ELSWORTHY, JAN 12, 2024  https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/01/12/nuclear-energy-coalition-policy-dutton-2025-election/

It’s now more expensive than renewables, Australia has a decades-long ban on it, and its key international example touted by the Coalition was scrapped, but that hasn’t stopped growing cries from conservatives about nuclear power entering the energy mix on the nation’s path to net zero by 2050.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is reportedly preparing to make nuclear a key part of his energy policy for the next federal election, telling the Institute of Public Affairs: “The only feasible and proven technology, which can firm up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean, cost effective and consistent power is next generation nuclear technologies.”

Dutton has tasked the opposition’s climate change and energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien with an internal investigation into a domestic nuclear energy industry in Australia. An enthused O’Brien has since returned from a tour of the US and Canada’s nuclear reactors last year, including the site of the BWRX-300 build in Ontario and Pittsburgh’s Generation IV nuclear battery, called the eVinci.

O’Brien is interested in small nuclear reactors, or SMRs — structures that would be manufactured in a factory, shipped out and assembled on-site in a dreamlike bid to drive down the cost and time delays of larger reactors.

“Environmental advocates, industry, private equity, centre-left and centre-right think-tanks, members of Congress — all told us that near 100% renewables was neither practical nor affordable, and that we needed nuclear in our energy mix,” O’Brien wrote in The Australian last year.

Several conservative figures have called for nuclear power to enter the energy conversation, including former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello, Nationals senator Matt Canavan, Nationals leader David Littleproud, and Liberal Democratic MP David Limbrick. Meanwhile, Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has flat-out called the idea “dumb”.

In November, however, conservative SMR dreams were dashed here and abroad when a US developer binned a project widely touted as kicking off the new nuclear era. NuScale Power said it had failed to attract enough utility customers for the controversial power source to proceed — but it had also nearly doubled in cost (from US$8 billion to US$14 billion), suffered a five-year time delay, and revealed its power generation capacity had been slashed by a third.

Even so, Australian National University Honorary Associate Professor​​​ Tony Irwin told Crikey there was “still time” for nuclear to contribute to Australia’s pursuit of net zero, requiring “politicians with a long-term vision” to recognise what some COP28 nations called “the key role of nuclear energy in limiting temperature rise”.

Griffith University Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society Ian Lowe called this bullshit.

“Nobody who can read joined-up writing and do take-away sums thinks nuclear power has any role in slowing Australia’s release of greenhouse gases,” the environmental scientist told Crikey.

A CSIRO report released last month found likewise, concluding nuclear power did not offer an “economically competitive solution”, and that SMRs would be “too late to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions” because of both legal and commercial viability hurdles.

Lowe also noted the 2006 Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) report had found nuclear energy would need very generous public subsidies to compete with renewables, which have backslid in price enormously in the 18 years since the review’s release.

The UMPNER was chaired by then head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) Dr Ziggy Switkowski — a spokesperson for the government organisation told Crikey it’s following the nuclear debate though officially “agnostic” on nuclear energy.

Lowe also noted that the Coalition’s bleating about the nation rescinding the nuclear ban and embracing the controversial power source from the opposition has interesting timing considering the nine years it spent in government.

“Of course, they did nothing to promote that technology in their decade in office and are now predictably evasive about where a nuclear power station would be located and how it would be funded,” Lowe said.

Labor MP Josh Wilson went harder, telling Crikey that Dutton’s growing support for nuclear energy in the face of cheaper and cleaner renewables showed the opposition leader is unfit to lead the country.

“By giving in to the climate deniers and nuclear cheerleaders in his own show, Dutton shows his preparedness to consign the Australian community to an expensive, disaster-prone, and dangerous future for the sake of protecting his own position,” Wilson said.

January 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Ted O’Brien’s fact-free nuclear cheerleading is cover for the same old climate vandalism

For O’Brien’s foray to be something other than time-wasting, oxygen-thieving nonsense, the shadow minister needs to be explicit about how much nuclear costs compared with other technologies.

For O’Brien’s foray to be something other than time-wasting, oxygen-thieving nonsense, the shadow minister needs to be explicit about how much nuclear costs compared with other technologies.

Katharine Murphy Guardian, 22 Dec 23

In huffing and puffing over renewables while denying the measurable costs of nuclear generation, the Coalition is digging in with the politics of relentless opportunism.

The great modernist poet TS Eliot once observed that humankind cannot bear very much reality. He might have been talking about Ted O’Brien, the shadow minister for climate and energy.

O’Brien is a fan of nuclear energy. That’s not a thought crime. I wouldn’t describe myself as a nuclear fan – but I know we might need every available technology, including nuclear, to reduce emissions in a manner consistent with the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C. There are lots of things in life that we don’t love, but might need – nuclear energy is one of those things. I’m yet to be persuaded that Australia needs it given the other abundant resources we have, but I’m open…………………………………………………………………………………………

If I were the federal minister for climate change, I’d remove the legislative ban on nuclear energy and instead regulate the well-documented safety risks through other legislative means. Chris Bowen has a different view. Nuclear lacks a social licence in Australia. It is also prohibitively expensive. Given these two facts, why would you chew up valuable policy bandwidth (a finite commodity when you are trying to correct 10 years of obstruction and regression) looking at the nuclear ban, when you can accelerate actual, achievable risk mitigation right now? When it comes to the energy grid, Australia can execute the necessary transition much more rapidly using firmed renewables – a significantly cheaper technology that the community actually supports.

Bowen’s position is entirely logical.

………………………This week, a new analysis from the CSIRO, in collaboration with the organisation that runs the power grid, the Australian Energy Market Operator, found that electricity generated by solar and onshore wind is the cheapest in Australia. This remans the case even when you factor in the expenses associated with bolting renewables into the power grid. This same analysis found smaller nuclear reactors was the most expensive form of technology considered in the exercise.

O’Brien wasn’t happy. Big feelings ensured. Huffing and puffing. Renewables might be the cheapest form of energy for investors, “but not for consumers.” O’Brien felt the “big investors that come into Australia to make money from utility scale wind and solar projects can look after themselves, but it’s Australian households that I care about – even if Chris Bowen doesn’t.”

Dude. Come on. Can we be grownups?

Nuclear power is expensive. This is not a bolt from the blue, nor a conspiracy promulgated by the wild wokeists of the world. It’s a well-established fact. These things can be measured.

When John Howard asked businessman and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski to scope out nuclear power in the mid-2000s, Switkowski concluded the government would need to legislate a carbon price to make the technology economical. Obviously energy verities have evolved over a couple of decades, but Switkowski maintained his point about the significant expense of conventional nuclear reactors in 2019, when he contributed a submission to a parliamentary committee chaired by (wait for it) O’Brien. Switkowski’s view in 2019 was that there might be commercial opportunity for small modular reactors in some parts of Australia, but “we won’t know until SMRs are deployed in quantity during the late 2020s.”

While we are on facts, here’s another one. The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the United States has recently cancelled its first project due to rising costs.

Rounding out the picture, a centre-right thinktank recently acknowledged there was no prospect of nuclear energy playing a role in Australia before 2040. As my colleague Adam Morton has pointed out, Aemo says renewable energy could be providing 96% of Australia’s electricity by that time.

So, let’s inhabit reality. Please. It really doesn’t seem that much to ask.

Persisting with reality, if the Coalition wants to propose an Australian nuclear option seriously (as opposed to pretending to explore something while weaponising large scale renewable developments that can reduce emissions now) then lots of things need to happen.

For O’Brien’s foray to be something other than time-wasting, oxygen-thieving nonsense, the shadow minister needs to be explicit about how much nuclear costs compared with other technologies.

If he’s concerned about the high energy costs Australian households are facing, O’Brien needs a plan to pay for his preferred nuclear generation. If the government is paying, then consumers are actually paying through their taxes. Also: where do the reactors go? Where is waste stored? How is the industry regulated?

In the absence of substance and transparency, the Coalition is continuing to have a lend of the Australian people. You’d think a couple of decades having a lend of Australians on an existential issue would be enough, but apparently it isn’t.
In the Abbott era, things were simpler. It was acceptable to wonder out loud whether climate change was crap. Now, the Coalition has to say it supports net zero. It has to suggest nuclear could be the magic bullet to get us there. (Sort of) committing to nuclear, then, provides a measure of cover for the same old vandalism – thwarting the renewable technology the Coalition has spent two decades thwarting.

This isn’t a contention. Like the costs of nuclear, political behaviour can be measured. The Coalition is now leading the charge, with One Nation, against offshore wind developments in the Hunter Valley. ……………………………………………………………………………………  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/23/ted-obrien-nuclear-cheerleading-renewables-climate-vandalism

December 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Opposition need to explain whether they’ll will stick with their ‘nuclear fantasy’

 https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/opposition-need-to-explain-whether-theyll-will-stick-with-their-nuclear-fantasy/video/0c769c2c68bb1a836d98ef84e385a3a3 21 Dec 23

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says the Opposition has some explaining to do about whether they’ll stick with their “nuclear fantasy”.

“So, of course, projects will encounter some challenges – Snowy 2.0 has encountered delays and cost increases,” he said during a media conference on Thursday.

“That’s just one example.

“Nevertheless, it remains a very important project.

“Renewable energy, in all the evidence independently examined by the CSIRO and AEMO, is the cheapest form of energy.”

December 22, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Flirting With Nuclear Energy Down Under

December 15, 2023, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/flirting-with-nuclear-energy-down-under/

It was a policy that was bound to send a shiver through the policymaking community. The issue of nuclear energy in Australia has always been a contentious one. Currently, the country hosts a modest nuclear industry, centred on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), nuclear medicine and laboratory products. But even this has created headaches in terms of long-term storage of waste, plagued by successful legal challenges from communities and First Nation groups. The advent of AUKUS, with its inane yet provocative promise of nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy, adds yet another, complicating dimension to this fact. Without a clear idea of a site, a vital part of the nuclear dilemma remains unresolved.

Broadly speaking, the nuclear issue, in manifold manifestations, has never entirely disappeared from the periphery of Australian policy. The fact that Australia became a primary testing ground for Britain’s nuclear weapons program was hardly something that would have left Canberra uninterested in acquiring some nuclear option. Options were considered, be they in the realm of a future weapons capability, or energy generation.

In a June 29, 1961 letter from Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies to his counterpart in the UK, Harold Macmillan, concerns over the impediments imposed by a potential treaty that would impose limitations on countries the subject of nuclear testing were candidly expressed. Were that treaty to go ahead, it “could prove a serious limitation on the range of decisions open to a future Australian Government in that it could effectively preclude or at least impose a very substantial handicap on Australia’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

Menzies put forth a suggestion that was ultimately never pursued – at least officially. An arrangement deemed “more practical,” suggested the Australian PM, might involve “the supply of ready-made weapons” at the conclusion of such a treaty.

A sore point here were efforts by the Soviets to insist that countries such as Australia be banned from pursuing their own nuclear program. Menzies therefore wished Macmillan “to accord full recognition of the potentially serious security situation in which Australia could find herself placed as a result of having accommodated United Kingdom testing.”

Australia eventually abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions with the ratification of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in February 1970, preferring, instead, the nuclear umbrella of extended deterrence offered by the United States. (The nature of that deterrence has always seemed spectacularly hollow.) Domestically, nuclear technology would be sparingly embraced. Nuclear power stations, however, were banned in every state and territory, a policy left unchallenged by a number of parliamentary inquiries.

The quest of meeting emissions reduction targets during the transition to the goal of net zero was bound to refocus interest on the nuclear power issue. The Liberal-National opposition is keen to put the issue of nuclear power back on the books. It is a dream that may never see the light of day, given, according to the chief government scientific body, the CSIRO, its uncompetitive nature and the absence of “the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”

Australian politicians have often faced, even when flirting with the proposition of adopting nuclear power, firm rebuke. South Australian Premier Malinauskas gave us one example in initially expressing the view late last year that “the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded.” It did not take him long to tell the ABC’s 7.30 program that he did not wish “to suggest that nuclear should be part of the mix in our nation.” Australia had to “acknowledge that nuclear power would make energy more expensive in our nation & [we should] put it to one side, rather than having a culture war about nuclear power.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been by far the boldest, pitching for a gentler exit from the fossil-fuel powered nirvana Australia has occupied for decades. Australia, he is adamant, should join “the international nuclear energy renaissance.” Of particular interest to him is the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which might be purposefully built on coal generator cites as part of the general energy package alongside renewables. SMRs, as Joanne Liou of the International Atomic Energy Agency explains, “are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 Mw(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.”

The heralded advantages of such devices, at least as advertised by its misguided proponents, lie in their size – being small and modular, ease of manufacture, shipping and installation. They also offer, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.”

For all these benefits, the cold reality of SMR designs is how far they have yet to go before becoming viable. Four SMRs are currently in operation, though these, according to Friends of the Earth Australia’s lead national nuclear campaigner, Jim Green, hardly meet the “modular definition” in terms of serial factory production of components relevant to such devices.

Russia and China, despite hosting such microreactors, have faced considerable problems with cost blowouts and delays, the very things that SMRs are meant to avoid. Oregon-based NuScale has tried to convince and gull potential patrons that its small reactor projects will take off, though the audience for its chief executive John Hopkins is primarily limited to the Coalition and NewsCorp stable. The company’s own cost estimates for energy generation, despite heavy government subsidies, have not made SMR adoption in the United States, let alone Australia, viable.

In his second budget reply speech in May, Dutton showed little sign of being briefed on these problems, stating that “any sensible government [in the 21^st century] must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.” Labor’s policies on climate change had resulted in placing Australia “on the wrong energy path.”

Such views have not impressed the Albanese Government. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists that counterfeit claims are being peddled on the issue of the role played by nuclear energy in Canada along with false distinctions between the costs of nuclear power and renewable energy.

“If they are serious about proposing a nuclear solution for Australia, the simplistic bumper stickers and populist echo chamber has to come to an end. Show the Australian people your verified nuclear costings and your detailed plans about where the nuclear power plants will go.”

Such verification will be a tall order indeed. As the CSIRO concedes, “Without more real-world data for SMRs demonstrating that nuclear can be economically viable, the debate will likely continue to be dominated by opinion and conflicting social values rather than a discussion on the underlying assumptions.”

December 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy is not viable for Australia, for a number of reasons

By John Grimes, Saul Griffith, Tim Buckley, Blair Palese, Janaline Oh, John Hewson, Mara Bun, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8456455/debating-viability-of-nuclear-power-in-australia/ December 13 2023

The prospect of nuclear power generation in Australia is now a live debate. There are a number of barriers that make nuclear unviable as a solution for Australia’s energy transition in a timeframe necessary to respond to the climate, energy and cost-of-living crisis. We outline these below.

We need energy, decarbonisation and cost of living solutions this decade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends a 50 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. As former Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel has noted, It is hard to imagine first operation of small modular reactor (SMR) technology before 2040.

SMR technology, advocated by proponents of nuclear energy in Australia, is not commercial. There are no SMRs in operation outside of Russia and China, and none under construction in Europe or North America, meaning there is no evidence of their safe and consistent operation, or viability. In November, the only SMR development in the US was terminated.

Nuclear power is prohibited in Australia under federal legislation, with similar legislation in the states and territories.

To overturn these bans and establish the new regulatory and compliance regime would take years and would only be the start of the process of developing a nuclear industry. Sites for reactors would need to be identified, and social licence secured. Rigorous approvals processes would need to run their course. A skilled specialist local workforce would need to be trained and deployed. Robust arrangements would need to be made to manage waste and to mitigate risk. Legal challenges and civic protest would arise.

All of the above means nuclear would not be ready to deploy in a climate-necessary timeframe in Australia.

Therefore, we must continue to deploy the commercially viable and proven zero-emissions technologies of firmed solar and wind power as rapidly as possible.

Further, the cost of nuclear power generation is much higher than its low-cost alternatives.

The 2022 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) notes that between 2009 and 2021, unsubsidised costs for solar PV declined from US$359 to US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh), a fall of 90 per cent, and for wind from US$135 to US$38 per MWh, a 72 per cent fall, while nuclear power costs rose from US$123 to US$167 per MWh, up 36 per cent. This gap is widening.

The CSIRO/Australian Energy Market Operator May 2023 GenCost report found that: “A review of the available evidence makes it clear that nuclear power does not currently provide an economically competitive solution in Australia – or that we have the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”

The Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents investors with $30 trillion in assets under management, says there is no interest among investors in nuclear, when nuclear has “project time blowouts of anything from seven to 15-plus years and cost blowouts in the tens of billions, and lowest-cost technologies, renewables, batteries and so on, are available to deploy now”.

The 2023 WNISR notes that in 2022, “total investment in renewable electricity capacity reached a new record all-time high of US$495 billion (up 35 per cent), 14 times the reported global investment decisions for the construction of nuclear power plants”.

The climate and energy price crises require Australia to accelerate the decarbonisation of its electricity system and economy toward zero-emissions this decade.

Australia enjoys the global advantage of superabundant solar and wind resources.

Unlike some economies where nuclear energy is established, Australia also has available landmass for renewables infrastructure and the opportunity to share the benefits with communities.

We urge the federal government to maintain its policy and investment focus on the proven technology of low-cost, deflationary firmed renewables and “electrification of everything”, and to accelerate deployments, as it has done with its recent landmark boost to the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) bolstered by its pledge at COP28 to triple renewables by 2030.

When announced last year, the federal government said the first iteration of its CIS would drive around $10 billion of investment in clean dispatchable power.

Climate Energy Finance estimates the recently announced turbocharging of the CIS will see a four-fold lift in firmed clean energy investment across Australia.

The fastest-to-deploy and most popular renewable energy option for Australia is rooftop solar, the world’s cheapest energy source, because it eliminates transmission and distribution costs.

Mass solar electrification of households should be central to our clean energy transition plans.

Electrification of communities and commercial operations in Renewable Energy Zones will improve equity and build social licence for large-scale energy infrastructure, as it enables decarbonisation of industry.

These complementary actions will permanently reduce greenhouse emissions and energy prices, enable Australia to deliver on its climate commitments, and catalyse our generational opportunity to position Australia as a zero-emissions trade and investment leader.

Australia has no time to lose. The rise of renewables offers us a chance to reinvent Australia’s economy.

We can ill afford the opportunity cost of delay to our renewables transformation.

John Grimes is CEO of the Smart Energy Council. Dr Saul Griffith is co-founder and chief scientist of Rewiring Australia. Tim Buckley is a director of Climate Energy Finance. Blair Palese is founder of the Climate Capital Forum. Janaline Oh is executive director of Diplomats for Climate and a former senior diplomat. Dr John Hewson AM is a professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy. Mara Bun is a company director and former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

December 14, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Labor’s new AUKUS bill declares Osborne in SA, Stirling in WA as nuclear zones.

AUKUS’ claims of “nuclear stewardship” with US nuclear submarines and retaining the US origin high-level nuclear wastes are a farce.

The US has been unable to dispose of its own high-level wastes.

David Noonan, Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide, December 12, 2023, Issue 1396  https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/labors-new-aukus-bill-declares-osborne-sa-stirling-wa-nuclear-zones

Labor introduced a bill on November 16, which cites Osborne as the first designated zone for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines.

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 allows for naval nuclear reactors at Port Adelaide under a new “Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator”. That entity is to report directly to Minister for Defence Richard Marles.

Nuclear submarines have never used this port.

Alarmingly, Section 132 of the bill over-rides the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the military regulator is given powers over the civilian Nuclear Safety Agency ARPANSA.

The Medical Association for Prevention of War has sounded the alarm. “Naval nuclear reactors — like all nuclear reactors — pose potentially serious risks for people and the environment. But unlike other reactors, most information about naval reactors is kept classified, and it can be difficult to say how safe they are.

Marles told parliament he will hold the power to direct the military nuclear regulator during a “national security” emergency.

Stirling Naval Base, near Fremantle in Western Australia, is the second nuclear zone to be declared in this bill.

The South Australian and Port Adelaide communities have the right to have a say on nuclear safety and the risks in bringing naval nuclear reactors into the port. 

Key public interest questions are yet to be answered.

They include: Will communities be consulted on accident response plans? What is the existing radiation emergency capability in current and proposed nuclear sub port sites? Will local health and medical services be consulted? How will communities be properly informed about the risks of naval nuclear reactors? How will safety issues be monitored and communicated? How will the public interest in safety issues be protected? When will accident scenarios for nuclear subs at base be modelled and made public? How can the public verify the quality of emergency management plans and systems? How can authorities demonstrate their capacity to respond to radiation emergencies, and other accident scenarios?

The bill has now gone to a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry, which is open for public submissions and is due to report next April.

The bill proposes to override state laws.
Section 135,  “Operation of State and Territory laws”, states: “If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.”

The bill provides for regulated activities in “nuclear waste management, storage and disposal” at AUKUS facilities in future nuclear zones, to be authorised under Section 135.

According to media reports in August, the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the “favoured location” for the storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste.

If the federal government wants to locate an AUKUS nuclear waste dump in South Australia, it will have to over-ride existing law to impose this. 

This AUKUS bill is a threat to the people of SA. AUKUS locks Australia into buying existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand 10-12 year old submarines, loaded with intractable US-origin weapons grade high-level nuclear wastes. 

US Vice Admiral Bill Houston has said in-service Virginia class submarines would be sold in 2032 and 2035 and a newly-produced submarine in 2038.

AUKUS’ claims of “nuclear stewardship” with US nuclear submarines and retaining the US origin high-level nuclear wastes are a farce. The US has been unable to dispose of its own high-level wastes.

Marles said in March there would be an AUKUS announcement by early 2024 on a process to manage high-level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility.

The storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the safety and welfare of the people of SA. That is why it is prohibited by the state’s Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.

This law covers public interest issues, including health, safety and welfare as well as “to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State”.

The import, transport, storage and disposal of high-level nuclear reactor waste is prohibited in SA.

This AUKUS bill must be challenged. The SA Premier is yet to say if he will support an Indigenous right to say “No” to an AUKUS dump. South Australians have a right to decide their own future and to say “No”.

[Dave Noonan is a long-term anti-nuclear campaigner. For more information see the Medical Association for Prevention of War’s Safety Brief. Contact the Committee Secretariat on 02 6277 3535 or email fadt.sen@aph.gov.au. Upload your submission here.]

December 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment