Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

New South Wales National MPs embrace nuclear industry, other MPs are shocked

Is it time to go nuclear?  https://www.echo.net.au/2020/03/is-it-time-to-go-nuclear/, 13 Mar 20 The announcement by National Party leader John Barilaro last week that his party would support the development of nuclear power in NSW came as a surprise to many considering the long lead times for nuclear power development and the abundance of solar and wind power that is ready to be quickly developed.

One Nation’s Mark Latham brought the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 to parliamentary debate on June 6, 2019 and it’s now working its way towards a vote.

However, local Lismore MP Janelle Saffin has urged North Coast residents to help her kill off the Nationals’ plans to build nuclear power plants in places like Tweed Heads and Coffs Harbour with the same determination shown to defeat Coal Seam Gas (CSG) mining.

Ballina Greens MP Tamara Smith points out that ‘While Europe is rapidly phasing out nuclear energy the dinosaurs in the National Party in NSW want to lift the ban and distract us all in an anti-nuclear debate’.

‘The coal barons and their favourite political party are counting on us to repeat the same mistake we made with climate change. We battled to convince the dinosaurs of climate science that was well and truly settled and we lost the war on vested interests in fossil fuel for over a decade.’

Ms Saffin said Mr Barilaro had announced his nuclear policy support on the run on Sky News, blindsiding Premier Berejeklian, who during Question Time on Wednesday (March 4) could not state her government’s true position on nuclear power.

Ms Saffin accused Deputy Premier and Nationals leader John Barilaro of dangerous behaviour in supporting One Nation Leader Mark Latham’s bill in the Upper House lifting the ban on uranium mining and nuclear energy in New South Wales.

‘By joining forces with Mark Latham, and his former visit overseas to gather information and support for his nuclear cause, John Barilaro has well and truly opened the door to nuclear power plants in coastal communities on the North Coast.

‘The Nats are embracing nuclear power – they keep marching us backwards and have no plans for water protection, no plans for cheap energy that they bang on about, and no plans for country New South Wales,’ she said.

Local National MP responds

Member for Tweed Geoff Provest has responded to questions from Echonetdaily stating that, ‘I have previously stated I am against nuclear power in the Tweed and I have heard nothing during this most recent discussion to change my mind.’ [Ed. note – does he mean that nuclear power is OK everywhere else in Australia?]

Member for Page, Kevin Hogan (Nationals) and National Party MLC, Ben Franklin have not responded to questions regarding their support for nuclear power development.

Federal investigation

Last year the Federal government House of Reps held an inquiry into the pre-requisites for nuclear power in Australia.

‘The release of the report has clearly been done in such a way as to attract the absolute minimum of attention. Its media profile up to now has been zero. That is likely because were it better known, it would have been panned by NGOs Australia-wide,’ said long time anti-nuclear campaigner John Hallam.

‘It’s clear from the recent Federal inquiry, that there is no case whatsoever for a pronuclear about-face in favour of reactors or uranium mining in NSW,’ he said.

‘Ten years ago, the argument would have been that nuclear power was/is uneconomic and potentially dangerous, and that it is uneconomic precisely because it is potentially dangerous. The argument now would be exactly the same, with the added one that in order to be of any relevance to combatting the climate emergency, a source of power must be cheap, problem-free and quickly and easily deployable and nuclear power is the opposite of all those things.

‘Nuclear power, far from solving the climate emergency, diverts needed resources from the real solutions – the deployment of cheap and quickly deployable renewables.

‘Small modular reactors look wonderful on paper but no one has actually succeeded in building even one that works satisfactorily and can be mass-produced, let alone the hundreds that would be needed.’

Local Greens MP Tamara Smith told Echonetdaily that her party requested to be included on the committee looking into nuclear but were ignored. Committee members include two Liberal party MPs, two Labor MPs, a One Nation MP, a Shooters Fishers and Farmers MP and a Nationals MP.

March 14, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobbyists have got into the ears of NSW’ National Party

Editorial – Nuclear afterglow  https://www.echo.net.au/2020/03/nuclear-afterglow/ Nuclear waste. Hans Lovejoy, editor, 13 Mar 2020

While there will surely be an afterglow of good will towards local National Party MLC Ben Franklin for securing the Shire $25m in road and infrastructure funding, it should be pointed out where his government is taking us when it comes to the energy sector.

Mr Franklin’s leader, John Barilaro, is a complete bozo.

For many informed voters, that’s not news.

Barilaro’s been a long-time supporter of nuclear power, and last week he reportedly supported One Nation’s attempts to create that industry and lift the uranium mining ban, all without consulting his own party. Seriously.

The Echo is still waiting on a reply from Mr Franklin on his attitude to the ‘nuclear option’, and whether Barilaro did not consult his party, as reported by SMH.

When asked if he supported repealing the uranium mining ban and creating a nuclear industry, Nationals Tweed MP Geoff Provest told The Echo, ‘I have previously stated I am against nuclear power in the Tweed, and I have heard nothing during this most recent discussion to change my mind.’

Notice how Provest only said he opposes nuclear in the Tweed? The rest of the state is presumably okay.

One Nation’s Mark Latham brought the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 to parliamentary debate on June 6, 2019 and it’s now working its way towards a vote.

Local Greens MP Tamara Smith told The Echo that her party asked to be on the committee that is looking into this – they were denied. Instead it’s stacked with MPs sympathetic to the industry.

Latham’s parliamentary speech, in support of nuclear, admits it takes a decade to establish, but points to Finland’s nuclear industry as why it should occur here.

It’s a speech that you would expect from One Nation – there’s no economic modelling presented to support the viability of nuclear, for example.

Instead, Latham uses his time trying to paint those opposed to nuclear power in Australia as fearmongers, while disparaging renewable energy.

There’s plenty of info available as to the insanity of nuclear – www.climatecouncil.org.au says it simply: ‘Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries in the world, with enough renewable energy resources to power our country 500 times over. When compared with low risk, clean, reliable and affordable renewable energy and storage technology in Australia, nuclear power makes no sense.

‘Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation’.

Clearly nuclear lobbyists are in the ear of Barilaro the Bozo.

Have they also got into the ear of the local Nationals MLC Ben Franklin? It may not matter – Franklin is obliged to vote for whatever idiotic laws his party supports.

March 14, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

This week’s uranium report- prices fall again, Australia’s “nuclear future” going nowhere

Uranium Week: The Nuclear Debate   https://www.fnarena.com/index.php/2020/03/11/uranium-week-the-nuclear-debate-3/ Mar 11 2020

Moves are afoot once again in Australia to lift bans on both uranium mining and nuclear power. The uranium spot price has slipped once more.

-U3O8 spot prices fall again
-Nuclear debate reopens in Australia
-History suggests it will be no easy road

By Greg Peel   This week’s uranium report could simply be left as “nothing happened”. At least nothing of major uranium industry implication. The same issues remain in place, so rather than rake over old ground yet again, as to why uranium prices are in the doldrums, this week we’ll zoom in Australia’s nuclear dilemma.

For the record, industry consultant TradeTech reported ten transactions completed in the uranium spot market last week totalling 1mlbs U3O8 equivalent. As buyers were again largely MIA, prices fell gradually during the week. TradeTech’s weekly spot price indicator has fallen -US50c to US$24.40/lb.

Term price indicators remain at US$28.25/lb (mid) and US$33.00 (long).

How to React?

The nuclear power debate has heated up in Australia once more. Driving fresh debate is the pending shutdown of ageing coal-fired power stations that provide Australia’s base load electricity. The federal government wants to build new coal-fired power stations. This policy already had its critics but as a result of this season’s bushfire disaster, an electoral groundswell is calling for the government to recognise climate change and act accordingly before it’s too late.

Australians are now generally opposed to both coal-fired power and new thermal coal mines. But not all Australians. The country is the world’s largest exporter of coal. The coal mining industry employs thousands, and thousands more are supported indirectly by that industry. The surprise victory for the coal-friendly Coalition at last year’s federal election was in part due to support from Queensland-based electorates, Queensland being Australia’s premier coal producing state.

Nuclear power has long been proposed as an alternative source to meet Australia’s electricity needs, if for no other reason Australia boasts the world’s largest known reserves of uranium. But from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl and Fukushima, successive governments have considered nuclear power to be electoral suicide. The debate is now back on again nevertheless, to lift bans on uranium mining and build nuclear reactors.

Australia is a federation of six sovereign states and two federal territories. Of those six states, four have bans on uranium mining. Tasmania has no known commercial uranium deposits, leaving South Australia as the only state with operating uranium mines. Of those four operating mines, two are currently under care & maintenance pending improved uranium prices, leaving only BHP Group’s ((BHP)) Olympic Dam and the foreign-owned Beverley in operation. A fifth mine – Ranger in the Northern Territory — is currently producing uranium but only from stockpiled ore.

Over a decade ago, the then Queensland premier decided to lift the state’s ban on uranium mining. So swift and brutal was the backlash from the coal lobby, the premier very quickly changed his mind. In the interim, one Western Australia state government lifted the ban on uranium mining, only to have the next government ban it again. Two mines under construction on the basis of the prior policy were exempted.

The Australian federal government previously limited the number of allowable uranium mines, but that policy has since been abandoned. The federal government is currently content to restrict the number of countries Australia can export uranium to.

Last week the New South Wales deputy premier supported a bill in state parliament to overturn a nuclear power ban, after a parliamentary inquiry recommended that the law prohibiting uranium mining and nuclear facilities should be repealed. The bill has the support of the Minerals Council of Australia, and the Australian Workers Union, which supports uranium mining and nuclear power for the jobs both will create. But the AWU’s stance puts it at odds with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which has long been anti-uranium for what we might call Fukushima reasons.

And support for uranium mining and nuclear power is not split down party lines at either federal or state level. The debate is splitting parties.

A lifting of state uranium mining bans would likely not achieve much in the near term. The marginal cost of new production well exceeds current uranium trading prices. To not build nuclear reactors, on the other hand, when the issue of Australia’s future base load power and electricity prices is paramount, and Australia has abundant uranium resources, is seen by supporters as pure folly.

The debate will rage on, but in the short term at least, likely go nowhere.

March 14, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Labor MP Yasmin Catley stands up for New South Wales nuclear ban laws

Nuclear power debate resurrected,  https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2020/03/nuclear-power-debate-resurrected/  MARCH 13, 2020

Member for Swansea, Yasmin Catley, has vowed to fight moves to repeal legislation banning uranium mining in NSW, which she says is the first step towards nuclear power plants in the State, with three Central Coast sites likely contenders.

An Upper House inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 has recommended repealing the original bill in its entirety.

Although this would make it legal to mine for uranium within NSW boundaries for the first time since 1987, the prohibition on nuclear facilities would remain in place as a result of prohibitions enacted in federal legislation.

But Catley said that Deputy Premier, John Barilaro, had made it clear that he supports the building of new nuclear power stations.

“While there is also federal legislation in this space, it is clear that the Deputy Premier sees the removal of the current ban on uranium mining and nuclear power in NSW as the first step towards that objective,” she said.

“Potential nuclear power station sites were identified at Eraring, Vales Point and Munmorah in 2018, but nuclear is not the answer to the problem of climate change.

“Nuclear is too expensive and too dangerous.

“The future lies in large scale renewable energy projects that bring together wind, solar and other renewable technologies to meet our needs.

“Wind power made reliable with storage, and peaking gas support, costs as low as $52MWh while nuclear energy in nations with established industries costs between $169MWh and $270MWh.

“New nuclear facilities will cost between $195 and $344 per MWh.
“This would see NSW households pay potentially six times as much for electricity.

“Already on the Central Coast we have Vales Point rolling out clean technology like solar.

“The government should be supporting the expansion of this sector and the jobs that come with it, rather than turning regional and coastal communities into nuclear power plant wastelands.”

But MLC Taylor Martin, who chaired the inquiry into repealing the prohibition bill, said bans on uranium mining and nuclear energy reflected the “outdated fears of the 1980s”.

“The safety of nuclear technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since the state prohibition commenced,” Martin said.

On the balance of evidence gathered for this inquiry, nuclear power in its emerging small scale applications, is a compelling technology where energy policy settings seek to decarbonise emissions while delivering secure, reliable and affordable energy to the NSW grid.

“Despite the share of wind and solar in the NSW electricity generation mix tripling in the past five years, just over seven per cent of the state’s electricity currently comes from these sources.

“It is clear that wind and solar firmed with gas, batteries and pumped hydro would not be an adequate solution to meet the state’s future needs for affordable and reliable electricity following the decommissioning of our ageing coal fired generation assets.

“There is an imperative for legislators and governments to be genuinely technology neutral and not lock out appropriate, low emission alternatives to replace these ageing assets.”

Martin said there were “no compelling justifications” from an environmental or human safety point of view which would warrant the blanket exclusion of nuclear energy from serious policy consideration in NSW.

“The outdated arguments for prohibiting nuclear on the basis of safety are increasingly difficult to defend,” he said.

March 14, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Melinda Pavey National Party MP wants Small Nuclear Reactors for the Riverina

Melinda Pavey says public perception of nuclear energy is changing  https://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/story/6677322/paving-the-way-for-nuclear-energy-production-in-oxley/  Ute Schulenberg  13 Mar 20,

Melinda Pavey says she would “love to see regional communities engaged in the discussion of all the opportunities zero emission [?] nuclear energy can offer”.

The Member for Oxley’s comments are in the context of the Upper House Parliamentary Inquiry into the mining of uranium in NSW and nuclear energy, led by Liberal MP Taylor Martin, which has recommended the law prohibiting uranium mining and nuclear facilities should be repealed.

The inquiry was established as a result of a bill put forward by One Nation MP Mark Latham.

While it is only the start of a fresh conversation about nuclear energy, Mrs Pavey said the public perception of zero emission nuclear energy was changing.

“Small modular reactors (SMRs)* are new technology and should be discussed as be part of an energy source and climate change,” Mrs Pavey said.

“SMRs will create new industries, more jobs and a reliable source of baseload power.”

Nationals leader and Deputy Premier John Barilaro has long-supported nuclear energy and said the Nationals would support a bill, as will the Shooters and Fishers.

The parliamentary inquiry will deliver its findings in September.

The process for nuclear energy is both a State and Federal process and both levels of government would have to overturn the various legislative bans currently in place prior to any changes being made.

* Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a type of nuclear fission reactor which are smaller than conventional reactors, and manufactured at a plant and brought to a site to be assembled. They require less on-site construction and supposedly increased containment efficiency. They do not require a coast locations as is the case with traditional nuclear energy sites.

March 14, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Call to Premier Gladys Berejiklian to stand up for a nuclear-free New South Wales

Premier must stand up to Barilaro on nuclear power,  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/premier-must-stand-up-to-barilaro-on-nuclear-power-20200310-p548k3.html  10 Mar, 20,    Deputy Premier John Barilaro has issued another ultimatum to the NSW government, this time over his obsession with starting a nuclear industry, but it is high time Premier Gladys Berejiklian called his bluff. Mr Barilaro is demanding that cabinet endorse a report by an upper house parliamentary committee backed by One Nation which recommends lifting the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power generation that has been in place since 1986. If cabinet refuses, he is threatening that he and perhaps the whole National Party will go their own way and vote in favour of a bill to that effect.

The Herald reported on Monday that some cabinet ministers who oppose nuclear power are threatening to respond by quitting if Ms Berejiklian caves in. The question of whether NSW can or should develop a nuclear industry is complicated. In theory, mining uranium could earn money and nuclear power generation could help reduce emissions. In fact, both face huge practical problems.
Of course, the Northern Territory and South Australia already mine uranium. But there is little reason for NSW to follow them now because, quite apart from concerns over waste storage, safety and proliferation, the business case is very weak. As the upper house report says, the state does not have any proven commercial deposits of uranium and, since the Fukushima disaster in Japan, the global market for uranium has been depressed. The conservative government in Western Australia ended its ban on uranium mining in 2010 but no new mines have opened.

Similarly, the prospects are also poor for nuclear power generation here any time soon. Nuclear reactors are very expensive and would take decades to build. By most reckonings, they cannot compete on cost with renewables – backed up by battery storage – or pumped hydro. Private companies will not build them without subsidies from taxpayers.

Given those practical issues, it is hard to understand why Mr Barilaro has joined One Nation’s crusade for nuclear power. Cynics would argue that his main goal is shielding the coal industry by delaying other more immediate and practical forms of action to reduce carbon emissions. And for Mr Barilaro, it might be a political winner. He might steal One Nation’s thunder and win the support of older regional voters and radio shock jocks who have a vendetta against those they see as renewables-loving green hippies.
But Mr Barilaro’s nuclear adventure risks doing damage to the government including a repeat of what happened to the Howard government in 2007 when it campaigned on nuclear power. The ALP pointed out that because plants require enormous amounts of water, they would have to be located on the coast. That went down like a lead balloon with voters and that was before Fukushima.
With a two-seat majority, Ms Berejiklian is more than usually dependent on her Coalition partner. Over the past year, Mr Barilaro has been able to extract some questionable concessions from her on water policy and regional jobs in the energy sector.

But she must not allow policy on such an important issue to be driven by a minority of Nationals MPs and the whims of One Nation backbenchers. As Premier, it should be Ms Berejiklian who sets the priorities of the state’s energy policy.

This is a good chance for Ms Berejiklian to stamp her authority on the government. Mr Barilaro has backed down in the past. He knows how much he and his party need to be in government. His bark is often worse than his bite.

March 12, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Australian government manipulates the National Radioactive Waste Management Act so as to prevent an Appeal

March 12, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean contradicts the Coalition party line – wants climate action and NO nuclear

March 12, 2020 Posted by | climate change - global warming, New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Australian defence officials and politicians, like Christopher Pyne, rotate quickly between government and weapons industry jobs

March 12, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Resources Minister Keith Pitt shows poor grasp of nuclear waste issues.

From Keith Pitt’s Website…. There are some glaring problems with his understanding of the portfolio including “the people of Napandee”….storage of Low Level Waste when it is Disposal….the inference that waste at the other 100 sites is nuclear medicine related….that nuclear medicine “keeps us well”….just to name a few,

Interview with Paul Culliver, Breakfast program of ABC North and West SA, 4 March 2020

Interviewer: Paul Culliver
Subject: Radioactive waste facility site, community consultation, progress with facility legislation, National Party Government to be built in Kimba. I just asked him: coming to this portfolio, and this process, what his mindset is. ………

PAUL CULLIVER: Obviously, Matt Canavan’s been the face of it for the Government for many years now and it’s now going to be you. Does anything change?

KEITH PITT: ……. really we just want to move forward with the legislation, get it through the system in terms of the House, the Senate, get royal assent and start to deliver for the people of Napandee.

PAUL CULLIVER: ……… Obviously, there’s people still with very strong views about this and very strong concerns about the process. I mean are you interested in hearing from those people still or are you just pushing forward?

KEITH PITT: We’re moving forward. We’ll always continue to consult with the community, but there’s been very broad community support; 61 per cent of the voters in Kimba support the facility; close on 60 per cent of local businesses; close on 60 per cent of submissions supported it; 100 per cent of the direct neighbours that share a boundary support the facility……..

PAUL CULLIVER: And what’s your feeling on the fact that the Barngarla people feel left out of that consultation process when people talk about broad community support? The Barngarla people say well we didn’t get a say in that community vote.

KEITH PITT: Well firstly, we’ve worked very closely with Barngarla people and there’s still an opportunity for us to continue to work closely with them as we’ve said we would both publicly and privately.

PAUL CULLIVER: The legislation’s gone into Parliament now; it’s been referred to a Senate inquiry. Could you just explain sort of what the process is there? What’s going to happen with that legislation?

KEITH PITT: Well firstly, the legislation’s been introduced to the Parliament. It will probably be debated in the House of Reps sometime this week,……. It will be debated in the Senate. Once it passes both the House and the Senate, after the committee process, it goes to what’s called royal assent with the Governor-General and becomes law and then we push on.

PAUL CULLIVER: And what exactly does this legislation do?

KEITH PITT: So effectively, it does make some changes around some pre-existing legislation to identify the site at Napandee as the site. There’s some bits around the community development package. ……….. but one of the points I really want to make is, you know, the low level waste which we stored here, around 80 per cent of that comes from nuclear medicine. ……

PAUL CULLIVER: One criticism from people vocal about this facility is that the intermediate waste is going to have to be moved on again somewhere anyway, so what’s the point of parking it in one place if you’re just going to have to find a new facility for it later?

KEITH PITT: So what we’ve said from the beginning is that this will be a storage facility for low level, and potentially intermediate waste. …….. we just have to be able to deal with the waste in a practical and sensible way.

PAUL CULLIVER: Will you be visiting Kimba?

KEITH PITT: It’s certainly on the list……I’ve spoken with Rowan Ramsey a number of times and I’ll take the first opportunity I can to get down in South Australia and talk to the local community…… https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/

March 12, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australian govt rejects a report that recommends nuclear submarines

French submarine program ‘dangerously off track’ warns report urging Australia to consider nuclear alternative, ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene  11 Mar, 20  Australia’s $80 billion Future Submarine Program is “dangerously off track” according to a new report that urges the Government to ditch the controversial project and consider a nuclear option.

Key points:

  • The report indicates there are fears the current project is at a high risk of failing
  • The Defence Minister denies those fears and maintains the project remains on track
  • Under a proposed “Plan B” scenario, the company that designed the Collins class submarines would prepare an updated design

Businessman Gary Johnston, who commissioned and funded the study, fears the current plan to build 12 attack class submarines designed by French company Naval Group is at “high risk” of failing.

His report, prepared by Insight Economics, suggests Australia should instead immediately begin work on a “Plan B” — an evolved version of the current Collins class fleet — before eventually acquiring nuclear-powered boats.

Earlier this year, a report from the auditor-general confirmed the Future Submarine Program was running nine months late and Defence was unable to show whether the $396 million spent so far had been “fully effective”.

“The Government’s own advisory body, including three American admirals, even recommended the Government should consider walking away from the project,” Mr Johnston said.

Under the proposed “Plan B”, Swedish company Saab Kockums, which designed the navy’s Collins class submarines, would be asked to prepare an updated design for the future submarine fleet.

In 2022-23, both Naval Group and Saab will present their competing preliminary design studies for building the first batch of three submarines in Adelaide — based on a fixed price, capability, delivery and local content.

Mr Johnston, along with former naval officers in the Submarines for Australia organisation, argue that over the long term the Government should begin preparing to acquire nuclear submarines……

Government rejects report, issues warning

The Submarines for Australia report will be formally launched by ANU Emeritus Professor Hugh White at the National Press Club today, but it is already drawing fire from the Morrison Government.

“I totally reject the premise that this project is ‘dangerously off track’, as stated in the new Submarines for Australia report”, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said.

“The delivery of the attack class submarine remains on track, with construction set to commence in 2023.”

Senator Reynolds said the technical feasibility of delivering an evolved Collins class submarine was reviewed in 2013-14, but a review found it would be equivalent to a whole new design, involving similar costs and risks, without a commensurate gain in capability.

“This assessment by Submarines for Australia will only increase cost, delay the delivery, and put at risk our submarine capability.”

The Defence Minister also flatly rejected any suggestion of a nuclear-powered submarine in the future.

“As has been the policy of successive Australian Governments, a nuclear-powered submarine is not being considered as an option for the attack class submarine,” Senator Reynolds said. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-11/australia-urged-to-embrace-nuclear-submarines/12043444

March 12, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Liberal-National Coalition in nuclear disarray

March 8, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | 2 Comments

Christiana Figueres- “Australia, you’re not ‘meeting and beating’ your emissions targets”

Be honest Australia, you’re not ‘meeting and beating’ your emissions targets https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/be-honest-australia-you-re-not-meeting-and-beating-your-emissions-targets-20200307-p547u1.html   8 Mar 20, Optimistic. Prosperous. A country of rare beauty, blessed with abundant natural resources. Australia has all the “golden eggs” needed to position itself as a global leader, to help its Asia-Pacific region leapfrog to a new energy future, and to guarantee Australian prosperity in the process.

Watching this summer’s unprecedented firestorms, I was heartbroken by the sheer scale of the human and ecological tragedy. “This must be the tipping point on climate politics in Australia,” I said to myself. “Surely now the politicians will join hands and forge a bipartisan plan for a better future.”

Instead, the climate wars have returned, driven by a handful of deniers afraid to let go of longstanding vested interests, and given air by powerful media sympathisers and a Prime Minister unwilling to fully embrace the science and stare them down.

For Australia, the choice between danger and opportunity is clear, and that choice must be made now. Since the 2008 Stern Review, the world has known that the cost of not acting is much greater than the cost of our current path. And since the 2008 Garnaut Review, Australians have known that without stronger action, droughts and bushfires would become more frequent and intense, and “observable by 2020”. It is time to move on from denial, delusion and delay towards preparedness, productivity and prosperity.

The following three steps will put Australia on track to the future we must create.

First, be honest about where Australia is at. Your country is much more than 1.3 per cent of the global climate problem. Carbon emissions from Australia’s use and export of fossil fuels account for about 5 per cent of the global fossil fuel footprint. With exports included, Australians have the biggest per capita carbon footprint in the world.

Australia is not “meeting and beating” its emissions targets. Emissions have increased in every calendar year since 2014. The government’s own projections say Australia will reduce emissions by only 16 per cent by 2030, not the 26 to 28 per cent it promised in Paris, nor the 50 per cent required by science to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Kyoto “carryover” can’t be used to make up the gap. The Paris Agreement doesn’t allow it. To suggest otherwise is at best an attempt to paper over Australia’s lagging efforts; and at worst, a legally baseless ploy that encourages cheating and holds back development of the next phase of carbon markets.

A highly vulnerable Australia cannot address climate change on its own, but its heel dragging leaves it without the international credibility to drive a stronger global response. The Australian government must look seriously at how to really meet and beat its 2030 target, and ask other major emitters to join it in an alliance for higher ambition at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this November.

Second, Australia needs a bipartisan, long-term vision for decarbonisation. Rattled by the bushfires and growing evidence of climate-related risks and stresses, Australia’s biggest corporations – including Rio Tinto, Qantas, Telstra and BHP – have announced support for a national net zero target for 2050. For them, legislating this target is important to finally end the climate wars, and provide the necessary certainty to underpin investment in the transition.

All states and territories have 2050 net zero targets, as do 73 other nations, including Britain and Canada. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would welcome Australia joining these ranks ahead of the COP26, and giving consideration to the British model of using an independent expert body to advise government on five-yearly carbon budgets en route to net zero by 2050. Independent MP Zali Steggall’s private members’ bill does exactly that.

Third, Australia must embrace net zero by 2050 as a central pillar of its economic plan for the future. The plan must prioritise the policies, industries and technologies that are scientifically aligned with the 1.5 degree temperature limit, and retire those that are not, albeit with gratitude for the service provided in the past.

Despite a booming renewables industry, coal still accounts for around 60 per cent of Australia’s energy mix. But the technology is tired and unreliable in the summer, highly polluting, and no longer price competitive with solar and wind, firmed up by big batteries or pumped hydro. There is no place for governments signed up to the Paris Agreement to provide subsidies for dying coal. We must instead invest in the future.

After two years in operation, South Australia’s 100-megawatt “big battery” at Hornsdale, has successfully stabilised the state’s grid, saved consumers $50 million, and produced handsome financial returns for its investors. In NSW, the Snowy 2.0 hydro project will deliver at least two gigawatts of dispatchable power to the main Australian grid, creating up to 5,000 jobs along the way. And for Western Australia, proponents of the 15-gigawatt wind and solar powered Asian Renewable Energy Hub plan not only to power local mines and aluminium smelters in the Pilbara. Like Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, they see the potential to earn big export dollars from green ammonia and hydrogen, displacing coal on Australia’s trade balance sheet, while quickly converting Japan and South Korea to clean energy.

These ground-breaking projects are just three examples of how Australia can lead and prosper. With political honesty and vision, ambitious targets, and a stubborn commitment to innovation, Australia stands ready to assume its rightful place as a clean energy superpower of the world. With the right choices, the future is bright.

Christiana Figueres is the former UN climate chief who oversaw the negotiation of the 2015 Paris Agreement, and is convenor of the Mission 2020 climate campaign. She is co-author of The Future We Choose and is visiting Australia this week.

March 8, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

New South Wales South Coast to become a nuclear wasteland? That’s the plan of the National Party

Nationals to support nuclear power; Far South Coast flagged as possible location  https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/6665667/nationals-to-support-nuclear-power-far-south-coast-flagged-as-possible-location/, Albert McKnight  6 Mar 20, 

The Nationals will support a bill to allow nuclear power in NSW, while separately the Far South Coast has been flagged as a possible location for a nuclear power plant.

When speaking to Sky News earlier this week, Deputy Premier John Barilaro confirmed The Nationals would support a bill proposed by One Nation on the matter, and said the state would not achieve its 2050 net zero emissions target without nuclear energy.

“While we exclude certain technologies when it comes to the energy mix for the future, I think we’re making it very hard for ourselves,” he told Sky News.

Mr Barilaro has been vocal about the nuclear power issue for years, last year saying it was “guaranteed baseload energy with zero emissions, no fossil fuels and probably the cheapest cost to the average Australian household”.

In a study by Nuclear for Climate Australia published on its website, the area between Bermagui and Merimbula is among 18 proposed areas of interest in NSW for a nuclear power station.

Under its proposal it states the South Coast has potential if included with other power plants that could be built at East Gippsland, the Snowy Mountains or Jervis Bay.

While it states the coast has many sites with “good access to once-through sea water cooling” – running a large amount of water through a power plant’s condensers then discharging it into a waterway with only a small amount of evaporation – an extensive grid upgrade would be required for a 2.2GW plant.

Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Adam Searle confirmed a McKay Labor Government would maintain a ban on uranium exploration, extraction and export.

“Nuclear is the most expensive form of power and its waste is a disaster for the environment,” he said.

“Regional and coastal communities now face the grim prospect of becoming a nuclear power plant wasteland, as a result of Mr Barilaro leading this government by the nose.”

Shadow Minister for the Illawarra and South Coast Ryan Park said coastal communities would never embrace nuclear energy.

“This has clearly divided the Liberal-National Government,” he said.

“[Member for South Coast] Shelley Hancock has already said she would not support nuclear plants on the South Coast.”

He said Member for Bega Andrew Constance should do the same. Mr Constance has been approached for comment.

One Nation’s Mark Latham introduced the bill to lift the ban on nuclear power and uranium mining in NSW, saying it would “create jobs, investment” and “undertake the long-term planning needed to keep the lights on”.

Does NSW need nuclear power? Write a letter to the editor 

 

March 7, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, politics | Leave a comment

Nature Conservation Council says the Nationals’ support for nuclear power is a “dangerous and expensive distraction”

March 7, 2020 Posted by | New South Wales, opposition to nuclear, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »