More than 40 groups representing millions of Australians say NO to nuclear power

Broad coalition representing millions of Australians opposes nuclear power,   https://www.sbs.com.au/news/broad-coalition-representing-millions-of-australians-opposes-nuclear-power  Some 40 groups have drawn up a statement calling on the federal government to embrace renewable energy rather than going down the path of nuclear. More than 40 groups representing millions of Australians have come together to issue a clear message to the federal government that the nation’s energy future is renewable, “not radioactive”. However, the mining industry is calling for the ban on nuclear energy to be lifted. The coalition of groups has submitted a shared statement in response to the federal parliamentary inquiry into the prospects for nuclear power in Australia. “The groups maintain nuclear power has no role in Australia’s energy future and is a dangerous distraction from real progress on our pressing energy and climate challenges and opportunities facing Australia,” the Australian Conversation Foundation said. “[We call] for the federal parliament to embrace renewable energy as the cleanest, quickest, cheapest and most credible way to power Australian homes and workplaces, and re-power regional communities and the national economy.” The ACF is joined by a broad coalition of faith, union, environmental, aboriginal and public health groups. These include the ACTU, state and territory trade unions and councils, the Public Health Association of Australia, Uniting and Catholic church organisations, the Smart Energy Council, the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, climate action groups and Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Their statement raises concerns over the long-life of nuclear waste, the volume of water needed to cool a nuclear reactor, the time needed to build a reactor, the high cost of a plant, security and safety. However, in its own submission, the Minerals Council of Australia called on the legislated ban on nuclear to be lifted and uranium mining to be mainstreamed with other minerals. Council chief executive Tania Constable said nuclear energy should be considered as part of the energy mix if Australia is to retain its strong industrial sector with high-paying long-term jobs. It will also encourage investment and maintain system and price stability through a stable and reliable electricity market while significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions. “Australia has lost its comparative advantage in energy,” Ms Constable said in a statement. “Rising prices and falling reliability are forcing businesses to invest overseas instead of Australia.”

September 17, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australia must not become a missile base, a nuclear target – Young Labor

Trump and nuclear weapons worry Young Labor,  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/trump-and-nuclear-weapons-worry-young-labor/news-story/c84899302a288e48a08fc1caa92cd0ff  GEOFF CHAMBERS FEDERAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 Young Labor has described ­Donald Trump as “concerningly pro-authoritarian and isolationist”, and warned Australia could become a “nuclear target” if US missiles were stationed in the north. Ahead of Scott Morrison’s landmark visit to the US this week, where the US President will host the Prime Minister at a state dinner, Australian Young Labor passed two motions at its national conference on the weekend warning about the Trump administration’s “erratic policies”. NSW Young Labor president Paul Mills, who moved two ­motions opposing US missiles in Australia and committing to the US alliance, said Labor should “draw the line at nuclear weapons”. Mr Mills said his US alliance motion endorsed “sentiment ­expressed” by former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans, of “Less US, more self-reliance, more Asia, and more global ­engagement”. “We would expect state conferences from around Australia to carry similar motions and for the policy to be adopted at the next ­national ALP conference to which I’ve been elected one of three Young Labor delegates,” Mr Mills said. Mr Morrison hosed down suggestions last month that the US was aiming to deploy ground-based missiles in Darwin amid the battle for dominance in the Indo-Pacific ­region between China and the US. Security experts last month warned of weaknesses in the ­nation’s defence capabilities in northern Australia, calling for more personnel and upgraded air bases as part of a long-term strategy. Opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles — a strong supporter of the US alliance — told The Australian the government had “previously ruled out ­receiving any formal request for US missiles being stationed in Australia”. “This is consistent with conversations Labor had with the Secretary of Defence in early August. Australia and the United States are natural allies; we have shared values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and shared aspirations to build a global rules-based order,” Mr Marles said. Mr Mills praised the comments of former prime minister Paul Keating opposing the deployment of US missiles and said it would render as impossible “any sovereign Australian decision about participating in American warfare directed at a third country”. It also makes Australia a ­nuclear target,” he said. Young Labor’s 50 delegates, who passed the motion unanimously, are the first branch of the party to endorse the anti-missile position. The motion said the “federal Labor leadership should be unequivocal in asserting: Australia must not become a missile base”. Young Labor’s agreed platform on the US alliance says it remains “beneficial for Australia’s national security interests and should ­recognise that regardless of Trump’s presidency, we should not lose sight of the continuing benefits” of the security pact.

September 17, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Is Australia to be guinea pig for NuScale’s non existent, untested, super-expensive not-so-small nuclear reactors?

Is building small nuclear reactors as ‘loopy’ as it sounds?  news.com.au Charis Chang@CharisChang2  14 Sept 19 Experts have warned of “catastrophic failure” if Australia adopts nuclear power, so why is the Government considering it?

A huge metal structure seven stories high and less than 100 metres wide could contain the key to Australia’s future energy supply.

September 16, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Push for nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real action on climate change

Environmental groups warn against push for nuclear power in Australia  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia  

Joint submission calls nuclear ‘a dangerous distraction’ from real action on climate as Zali Steggall backs 2050 zero-emissions target , Paul Karp @Paul_Karp  16 Sep 2019 Environmental and civil society groups have warned the government nuclear power has “no role” in Australia as crossbench independents urge it to recognise climate change as a health issue.

On Monday submissions to the inquiry on nuclear power will close. A diverse group of stakeholders has called on the government to rule-out changing the law to allow nuclear energy in Australia.

Signatories to the statement include union peak bodies, the Public Health Association of Australia, Uniting and Catholic church organisations, the Smart Energy Council, the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, climate action groups, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The anti-nuclear group warned it is “a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need”.

“If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not,” they said in a statement.

“Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.”

Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, has told the inquiry that the technology had no chance of being introduced unless Australia had a coherent energy policy but nevertheless agreed the prohibition should be lifted.

September 16, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Minerals Council of Australia again pushing pro nuclear propaganda

Mining industry renews push for nuclear option,  https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/mining-industry-renews-push-for-nuclear-option-20190913-p52r2r.html, By Nick Toscano

September 16, 2019 Australia’s mining sector has launched a fresh push to lift the prohibition on nuclear energy arguing new-look compact nuclear reactors could provide the “cheapest, zero-emissions” baseload power to replace retiring coal-fired power stations.

As the resources industry prepares for a transition away from fossil fuels in coming decades, the Minerals Council of Australia has told a federal government inquiry that nuclear power must be explored as part of the future energy mix to address the worsening problem of rising power prices and deteriorating energy grid reliability.

“Only a commitment to restore energy affordability and reliability will reverse this drift, and nuclear power – especially innovative small modular reactors – will go a long way to providing clean, reliable and lower-cost power for Australian homes and businesses,” said Tania Constable, chief executive of the lobby group which represents mining giants including BHP and Rio Tinto.

Touted by some as the next generation of nuclear power, small modular reactors (SMRs) can be built in factories and assembled on location.

Their deployment is under consideration in a number of countries including the United States and Canada although their cost is not yet known as none are yet commercially available.

Apart from existing run-of-water-hydro, the Minerals Council said, nuclear was the only energy source capable of providing affordable, continuous and zero-emissions power at industrial scale.

“It is a mature, proven and safe power generation … yet Australia’s ban on nuclear power means that our communities and businesses are denied its many benefits,” Ms Constable said.

Australia has a third of the world’s economically recoverable uranium, which is mined and exported for use around the world, but domestic nuclear energy is banned under federal legislation.

The mining group’s calls for nuclear are contained in a submission to a federal parliamentary inquiry launched by Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor to investigate the potential for nuclear as a future power source for Australia.

At the inquiry’s first public hearing, prominent business leader and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, said while the window for large, gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants had closed,  SMRs could provide opportunities in regional towns and mining sites for generation of “clean, safe baseload power”.

But, he added, it would likely be more than a decade until it was known whether small modular reactors were suitable for Australia and about 15 years to bring such a plant online.

Dr Switkowski said nuclear power was comparable to renewable energy in its low level of greenhouse gas emissions but was not weather-dependent in the same way as wind and solar generation.

The challenges to supporting a nuclear energy strategy, he said, included that the lack of political and public support and the fact that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear failure such as Chernobyl in Ukraine or Fukushima in Japan was not “negligible”.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull last week voiced the opinion of many critics, saying it was obvious that nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and battery storage and describing the push for nuclear power as “loopy” and a “distraction” for politicians.

September 16, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Arnaud Coquillard’s submission to Federal Nuclear Inquiry rejects nuclear power, calls for care for the planet

Coquillard, Arnaud (59) Says that the government is considering Generation IV nuclear reactors, but they don’t even exist yet. Their safety over time is uncertain. They still produce toxic wastes. Uranium mining is also environmentally harmful. Australia should deveop non nuclear clean energy technologies. 

“Please think of the people that you represent, the responsibility you have towards humanity, the plant and animal kingdom  and the planet as a whole. Compare that responsibility to the minority of corporate, businessman that pressure you to have nuclear power plant.”

September 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Eric Gribble’s submission to the Federal Nuclear Inquiry in favour of nuclear power

Gribble , Eric (38) addresses the question of ionising radiation – nuclear power development is safe, but held back by  “a widespread paranoid concern due to a lack of understanding of what radiation is.”

Goes on to explain that radiation can be beneficial – quotes some dubious science from 2002 and 1992…. “It appears that slightly elevated levels of radiation are beneficial but levels above 100 mSv the risk appears to increase. .. “ Quotes some study showing that radiation decreases incidence of lung cancer. Claims that Fukushima nuclear accident caused only one death due to material falling upon a man. No evidence of cancer caused.

Uses Hiroshima studies to dismiss concerns about radiation dangers…

Says nuclear power “is safe and the only option “

“Renewables do not stack up on a cost basis.”

Raves on about hydroponics and space “… If space travel is to become a reality using existing technology mankind will need a massive amount of energy. Energy to make rocket fuel. ….. Nuclear energy will open up the future. “”

. “Nuclear energy is the energy source of the future, Australia cannot afford to continue to let opportunities slide.”

“It is easy to be a green. You simply oppose everything, dams, nuclear, fossil fuels, the free enterprise system, whatever. Yet there are many people (probably most people) out there who are as concerned about the environment as the most rabid green but do not support the green movement.”

September 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

John Quiggin sets out a very unlikely course for nuclear power in Australia

The central recommendations of my submission were as follows:

Recommendation 1: A carbon price of A$25/tonne should be introduced immediately, and increased at a real rate of 5% a year, reaching A$50/tonne by 2035.

Recommendation 2: The government should immediately adopt the recommendations of its own Climate Change Authority for a 40% to 60% reduction in emissions by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, and match other leading OECD countries in committing to complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050.

Recommendation 3: The parliament should pass a motion:

• 
  affirming its confidence in mainstream climate science and its acceptance of the key conclusions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
• legislating a commitment to emissions reductions;
• removing the existing ban on nuclear power……..There are immediate political implications of my proposal at both the state and federal level. It will be more difficult for the Coalition-dominated committees running the two inquiries to bring down a report favourable to nuclear power without addressing the necessary conditions – including a carbon price. If the government’s hostility to carbon pricing is such that a serious proposal for nuclear power cannot be considered, it will at least be clear that this option can be abandoned for good.  ……..Given the urgency of addressing climate change – a task that is best addressed through a carbon price – it makes no sense to reject action now on the basis that it opens up the possibility of nuclear power sometime in the 2030s. And, if renewables and storage perform as well as most environmentalists expect, nuclear power will be unable to compete even then. ………  https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-should-be-allowed-in-australia-but-only-with-a-carbon-price-123170

September 13, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australian government must fund nuclear power- Barrie Hill of SMR Technology

Barrie Hill gives an insight into just what the global nuclear lobby wants from Australia.  They want to overturn Australia’ s laws prohibiting nuclear activities, and get the tax-payer to fund the development of the nuclear industry in Australia

His submission (no.60) to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia is a fine example of the nuclear-lobby-speak that is turning up in these submissions from nuclear power experts.  He’s the Managing Director of SMR Technology, and makes sure to outline his impressive background in the industry.

His is a long submission, in 3 long documents.  Here are snatches from his main document.:

*****************************************************

Hill says that for Australia replacing coal with nuclear will be “ the least cost alternative “. He recommends a South Korean type nuclear chain. Says that “the viability and advantages of small modular reactors is fully covered in a separate submission”. Recommends setting up a Federal government authority to lead Australia’s nuclear program. Recommends the South Korean Advanced Power Reactor 1000MWe (APR1000).

“It is recommended that the groundwork for an inevitable future nuclear power program is put in place beginning with the removal of all legislated prohibitions and increased support or familiarisation and training programs.”

“ the government will need to guarantee high level positions with appropriate salaries for  qualified persons coming from existing nuclear areas”

Recommends used fuel storage to be ready by 10 years from first plant commissioning “and that storage allow for eventual fuel recovery”. Wants high regulation and documentation, and sites for reactors chosen early.

Outlines his strong background in the nuclear industry.

Discusses the needs for electricity, and limitations of renewable energy. Criticises the electricity marketing structure. All existing subsidies should be removed. Says base-load power is critically needed. Wants a single independent Australian Electricity Commission to be set up.

Goes on at length and in detail about projected.electricity costs. “The development of nuclear reactors for power generation provides a cost effective, safe, and reliable option for the progressive replacement of the current Australian base load generation fleet.” and suggests direct replacement by Small Modular Reactors.

Says that Westinghouse indicated a  “good potential for widespread industry involvement within Australia”.

Hill attributes the “difficult acceptance” of nuclear power to “accident outcomes sensationalised by technically uninformed media.”

“At an early point in the process the Federal and State governments should act to remove all legislative bans prohibiting a final decision to proceed so that the work may be developed unobstructed and finally judged on it’s merits. It is clear that the existence of the bans has restricted expenditure on thorough analysis to date particularly by government  agencies and has been a severe detriment to the establishment of a coherent energy policy for the nation.”

He moves on to “Stage 2” – a feasibility study, resulting in a “national investment decision”, the forming of a Nuclear Energy Program Implementing Organisation, bring in many experts, including foreign experts for “high level knowledge” . Recommends Government Leadership and Continuous Investment in Nuclear Infrastructure….. “ The Australian government therefore should play a lead role in the program from the initial phase with investment funds, manpower selection, and appropriate planning –

“With the existence of a firm financial guarantee from the government local and overseas companies will actively participate in the national nuclear power construction program with reduced risk. ”.

“Only an Australian government agency can arrange and manage the required level of investment estimated to total $150B to eventually replace all retiring coal fired power stations, to ensure maximum benefit for the Australian community and minimum risk. The Reserve Bank has noted that this time of unprecedented low interest rates is the perfect  opportunity for government investment in productive new assets such as power stations.”

Lengthy discussion on need for training and education especially tertiary. International co-operation, especially on safeguards. Need for a standard nuclear design.

[on nuclear wastes)”The work carried out for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission based in South Australia has provided sufficiently detailed pre-feasibility studies to commence final feasibility work for the implementation of used fuel storage in Australia. It is recommended that used fuel storage be available ten years from first plant commissioning and that storage allow for eventual fuel recovery.”

Recommends importing nuclear wastes, as a way to fund nuclear power development :“The economic viability and revenue streams defined for used fuel import storage as part of the work carried out by the South Australian Royal Commission could in the extreme provide sufficient revenue to fund the development of a nuclear power program for all of Australia. This massive economic opportunity cannot be overlooked”

Need for a strong independent regulator.

On insurance, Hill explains why “ beyond a certain level risk had to be socialised. It is now understood that the state needs to accept responsibility as insurer of last resort”

Hill dismisses the idea of any necessary connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation.

Discusses how to organise a leadership team, then process for choosing sites for reactors.

Discusses radiation at length, tending to minimise the health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and reassures about the nuclear industry’s good safety culture.

“Recent OECD and local studies suggest that Federal action to introduce nuclear power is the only economically viable option to meet minimum cost of supply, maximum reliability of supply, and key environmental imperatives for the Australian electricity sector.”

Hill gives detail on choosing a reactor type- recommending a Korean one.

On risk analysis – “Humans are poor risk managers, focusing too much on consequences and too little on probabilities – something insurance and lottery salesmen relish.” Gives lengthy detail on risk identification and risk mitigation. He includes not only safety risks, but also financial risks, and ways to mitigate them.

Finally, Hill turns to the issue of climate change, recommending nuclear power for reducing greenhouse gases, and replacing coal power.

“The Federal government will be required to manage the financing, construction and operation of all nuclear power stations for the foreseeable future.
A prerequisite for the investment is the establishment of a government leadership andmanagement control organisation the Australian Electricity Corporation”

“ It is time for the Australian Federal government to lead a strategy for change before all those benefits are
irretrievably lost.”

September 12, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Up until 7 September, submissions to Federal Nuclear Inquiry were 50/50 pro and con

Submissions to the Federal Nuclear Inquiry? What are people saying?

Up until 7 September, 38 submissions have been published on the website of the Federal Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia

The numbers of submissions  for and against nuclear power are almost 50/50. However, as some submissions may be confidential, we can’t really be sure of the numbers.

The main arguments In the pro nuclear submissions.

The topic mentioned most often was – advocating for thorium nuclear reactors. Pro nuclear submissions also tended to focus on a call for public education about nuclear power, and a need to remove Australia’s laws that prohibit the nuclear industry. Several submissions concentrated on the question of nuclear wastes – arguing that this was not such a problem and a solution would be found. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) were recommended, as cost effective.

The main arguments in the anti nuclear submissions

Overwhelmingly, the most selected topic was economics – the costs of nuclear power, and the government subsidies needed. Nearly as often mentioned was renewable energy, and its role in reducing greenhouse gases. Another big concern was the safety risks of nuclearpower. There were several mentions of water use of nuclear power, of radioactive waste problems, and risks of terrorism and of nuclear weapons proliferation.

There were a variety of other concerns raised by both sides. Radiation is a hotly argued issue. Its hazards are discussed by Paul Savi (Submission No 4), but Erlc Gribble (No 38) argues that low dose radiation is not harmful, in fact can be beneficial (radiation hormesis).

The anti nuclear arguments included social and political claims –  that nuclear power has no social licence (EcoEnviro Pty Ltd – Richard Finlay-Jones Submisson 6), – that there is historic Australian opposition – hence the ban, (Greig  Myer Submission 25),  – the undemocratic history of nuclear activities in Australia,(Paul Savi, Submission 4)

Other anti-nuclear claims- that Australia shouldn’t be the first to try out SMRs, that renewables would provide more employment, that Aboriginals’ historic care of the land should be respected, (Trish Frail 32) .

On the pro nuclear side, there’s some exasperation at Australians’ lack of knowledge about nuclear power. Robert Gishubl (Submission 28) rails at “the irrational faith based objections many people have”. Eric Gribble (38) writes of “a widespread paranoid concern” about radiation, – “It is easy to be a green. You simply oppose everything “.

Pro nuclear suggestions in include first getting an international nuclear waste facility in South Australia, which would then fund the development of Generation IV nuclear reactors –  (Matthew Gustafson,  (20).   Keith Thompson (11) suggests that the government offer generous awards for people who produce solutions to nuclear waste disposal.  Geoffrey Hudson (37) warns on delay problems for land-based reactors, and advocates reactors on barges at sea. Ian Fischer(No 8) recommends a voluntary postal plebiscite to allow Australians to decide about a nuclear future. Eric Gribble (38) is keen on nuclear power’s ability to further Australia’s role in space research.
Even on the pro nuclear side, there are some reservations, and not all are sceptical of renewable energy.  Goronwy Price (35) sees nuclear as a support to renewables. Geoff Billard, (31)’s support for nuclear power is conditional on it being cost-effective.

At this stage, it’s hard to assess the general opinions on ” the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia”.  Submissions are accepted until September 16th. So there will probably a new rash of submissions published, over the next weeks. .  The ones published so far have been relatively short. We can expect some longer and more detailed ones from various companies and organisations.

September 12, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Labor Party highlights Liberal Coalition’s recommended spots for nuclear reactors

Labor demands nuclear be wiped off options,  https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/6368008/labor-demands-nuclear-be-wiped-off-options/ Australian Associated Press 10 Sept 19, Ever enjoyed a holiday to Noosa, Sussex Inlet or French Island? How would you feel if there was a nuclear power station in your idyllic vacation spot?

September 10, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment