Queensland Sinister Matt Canavan is having a closed door meeting with the Barndioota Consultative Committee before the Hawker meeting. No doubt the serious nuclear waste dump decisions will be made then
But there’ll be open meetings – ?window dressing – at Hawker 21 August, and at Kimba 22 August.
21 August Wed 3.30 – 430 pm Hawker Sports Centre – Druitt Range Drive, Hawker
22 August Thurs 11 a.m – 12. pm Kimba Gateway Hotel- 40 High St Kimba
August 15, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
|
Aust OECD nuclear power claim is false, Leader, Australian Associated Press, 12 Aug 19,
AAP Fac tCheck Investigation: Is Australia the only OECD country that does not use nuclear power?
The Statement: “We are the only OECD country that doesn’t utilise this type of technology (nuclear power).” – Federal Liberal National Party MP Keith Pitt. August 7, 2019.
The Verdict False – The checkable claim is false.
The Analysis Federal coalition MP Keith Pitt has campaigned for nuclear power to be investigated as an option to form part of Australia’s energy mix. Mr Pitt believes nuclear should not be excluded and Australia should re-examine its moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants.
AAP FactCheck examined the Queensland MP’s claim that Australia is the only OECD country that does not use nuclear power. [1]
Mr Pitt’s statement was made as the federal government announced on August 7 an inquiry into the feasibility of using nuclear energy as a power source for Australia. The new inquiry follows a 2016 nuclear fuel cycle royal commission by the South Australian government and a 2006 federal review by the Howard government. The 2006 review found Australia would need about 25 reactors to supply one-third of the nation’s electricity supply by 2050, while the 2016 commission’s found SA “could safely manage” used nuclear fuel from other countries. Submissions to the new federal government review are open until September 16 with a view to finalising a report by the end of the year. [2][3]……
Australia’s ban on nuclear power and nuclear power plant construction is enforced by two acts of federal parliament – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.Section 140A of the EPBC Act 1999 states: “The minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; b) a nuclear power plant; c) an enrichment plant; d) a reprocessing facility”. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act applies to Commonwealth bodies and is not a barrier for state government body or private developer. [4] [5] [6] [7]
……. Listed under non-nuclear countries for OECD Pacific are Australia and New Zealand, while in Europe there are 14 nations listed and for the Americas, Chile is a non-nuclear country. [8] [9]
Industry Super Australia chief economist Stephen Anthony, was quoted as saying on June 26, 2019: “The point about nuclear is that all other OECD countries have nuclear, we do not.” Mr Anthony’s interview with the ABC’s World Today program included an editor’s note which stated: “The interviewee in the report states that all OECD countries use nuclear power – except for Australia. According to OECD figures, 16 of its members do not use nuclear power”. [10]
When contacted about the source of his claim, Mr Pitt’s office told AAP FactCheck that the Hinkley MP “misspoke” during the interview with Sky News.
Based on this evidence AAP FactCheck found Mr Pitt’s statement to be false. Australia is not the only OECD nation that does not use nuclear power.
|
August 13, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
$40 billion a year needed for infrastructure to catch up with our population growth, SBS News, 13 Aug 19, Infrastructure Australia has warned a new wave of investment and planning reform is needed for the nation to keep pace with population and economic growth.
Australia needs to commit to spending $200 billion every five years on a range of infrastructure projects if it wants to keep pace with population growth.
Infrastructure Australia has warned a new wave of investment is needed to ensure roads and public transport, schools, water, electricity and health services support people’s quality of life and economic productivity.
The most visible example of the impact of poor infrastructure is the increasingly congested roads and crowded public transport in our biggest cities, the 2019 Australian Infrastructure Audit published on Tuesday says.
At the moment, this congestion costs the economy $19 billion a year but if no more is spent on upgrades, that will double to nearly $40 billion by 2031.
Less visible but just as frustrating to people are hospitals and schools that are ageing or reaching capacity, overcrowded parks and city green spaces, ageing water pipes, and the quality of services like the NBN……..
Planning problems have occurred because population projections have traditionally been based on past growth areas, whereas actual growth has been faster and in different areas than anticipated. ……..https://www.sbs.com.au/news/40-billion-a-year-needed-for-infrastructure-to-catch-up-with-our-population-growth
August 13, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
|
Nuclear reactor and steelworks plan once considered for pristine beaches of Jervis Bay
Key points:
- Former PM John Gorton wanted a nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay in the late 1960s
- The project was delayed when William McMahon became prime minister in 1971
- Then when Gough Whitlam became prime minister, he signed a treaty that ended any plans to make atomic weapons
A steelworks, petrochemical plant and an oil refinery were also slated for the site at Jervis Bay, but what was not announced was a plan to generate weapons-grade plutonium that could have seen Australia become a nuclear power.
Fifty years later, Australia is again mulling over the question of nuclear energy with two separate inquiries underway.
A federal parliamentary committee is investigating the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power in Australia.
In NSW, meanwhile, a committee is looking into overturning a ban on uranium mining and nuclear facilities.
While neither is talking specifics in terms of where nuclear enrichment technology or modern-day facilities like small modular reactors (SMRs) could be located, it has brought to the forefront questions of geography.
Jervis Bay is a Commonwealth territory, located within NSW, but the laws of the Australian Capital Territory apply.
Potential reactor sites
In 2007, in the wake of the Switkowski nuclear energy review under the Howard government, the Australia Institute published a research paper identifying 19 of the most likely reactor sites.
The sites were located across Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, NSW, and the ACT.
It found the most suitable sites were close to major centres of demand and preferably in coastal areas to ensure easy access to water.
Jervis Bay inevitably comes up as a potential reactor location due to its history as the only nuclear power plant to have received serious consideration in Australia.
At the time it was promoted as the first of many.
In February 1970, the Illawarra Mercury proclaimed:
“The power station will be the first of 20 atomic plants costing more than $2,000 million to be built in Australia by 1990.
“The reactor will use 500,000 gallons of sea water a day for cooling purposes.”
That was the blueprint that nearly became a reality.
Shrouded in secrecy
There was a darker side to the Jervis Bay reactor too, with evidence revealed in a 2002 ABC documentary, Fortress Australia, that the 500-megawatt fast breeder reactor was chosen due to its ability to generate weapons-grade plutonium for use in an Australian nuclear weapon
Fortress Australia uncovered secret documents showing how the chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), Phillip Baxter, influenced three Liberal prime ministers (Menzies, Holt and Gorton) to support the project. …..
Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds from the University of Newcastle told ABC podcast The Signal how Gorton pushed for the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay…….”They did the study, they worked out the capability, they had to go negotiate with the British about the technology, then they actually started to build this reactor at Jervis Bay.”
The project was first delayed after William McMahon became prime minister in 1971 and was later put on hold indefinitely, despite efforts to keep the project alive.
As late as March 1975, the Illawarra Mercury was reporting:
“Jervis Bay may still be the site for a nuclear power plant and a possible site for a nuclear-powered submarine base.”
But the horse had bolted.
Any hopes of a nuclear power industry in Australia effectively ended when McMahon lost government to Gough Whitlam’s Labor in December 1972.
Whitlam’s signing of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 1973 also ended any plans by the AAEC to provide Australia with the capacity to manufacture atomic weapons…….
|
|
August 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history, Opposition to nuclear, opposition to nuclear, politics, secrets and lies, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Nuclear energy inquiry: is Angus Taylor’s move logical or just for the backbench?
Guardian, Adam Morton Environment editor@adamlmorton 11 Aug 2019 Political arguments about nuclear power in Australia are not new, but the energy minister, Angus Taylor, says this time is different.
Announcing a parliamentary inquiry into what would be necessary to develop a nuclear energy industry, Taylor suggested people should no longer be thinking of the large-scale plants that had dominated the global industry since the 1950s. The future of nuclear, if it had one, was small.
“The technology that’s emerging is not gigawatt power, it is actually small modular reactors,” Taylor told the ABC.
He said there were no plans to drop Australia’s moratorium on nuclear energy, but there were different points of view on the subject and the cost of small modular reactors was changing quickly. “Finding affordable, sustainable, reliable, baseload power for the decades ahead is an important role of government and of parliament and that’s why I have asked for this inquiry,” he said.
The Guardian asked Taylor’s office what had shaped his belief that small modular reactors were getting cheaper, but did not get an answer.
At least in part, the minister seems to have been informed by the work of SMR Nuclear Technology, a company hoping to bring the technology to Australia. Its directors include coal power plant owner and Coalition donor Trevor St Baker, who the company says has met Taylor on the issue.
Small nuclear reactors are in some ways not a new idea. Similar technology is employed in nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers. But they are next to non-existent in power generation.
The model favoured by SMR Nuclear Technology is being developed by a US company, NuScale Power, which originally hoped to have a plant running by 2022. Its plan for 60-megawatt nuclear modules is yet to receive regulatory approval in the US. The company hopes to clear this hurdle by September 2020, for construction of the first module to start in 2023 and for it to start producing electricity by late 2026.
The industry says small modular reactors have several benefits: they have less nuclear material and better temperature regulation and are therefore easier to keep safe; the reactor can be installed underground to provide protection from above ground risks such as extreme weather and terrorism; the initial capital cost is low and building modules in factories can cut costs further.
Given the technology has yet to complete a three-year review, the cost is difficult to assess, but some experts have given estimates. In Australia, the last full examination of nuclear power was a 2016 South Australian royal commission that found neither large nor modular nuclear reactors were likely to deliver a commercial return between now and 2050 even if a strong carbon price was introduced, something the government says it has no intention of doing.
It found that while the smaller version had the benefit of requiring less upfront capital investment, it also raised a number of potential cost hurdles. They included that small modules were likely to require more fuel than large reactors, and promised cost-savings from building in factories would not kick in unless the industry reached a scale that justified a production line.
More recently, an analysis of the cost of electricity generation by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator published in December found modular nuclear power was likely to be far more expensive out to 2050 than all other forms currently used or seriously considered by the government, including solar and wind with storage.
From a global perspective, an assessment by the International Energy Agency in May found nuclear power in the developed world was in decline, with plants closing due to age and little new investment. Only four large-scale plants are under construction in Europe and North America, and all have suffered delays, cost blowouts or both. Construction costs have nearly doubled since 2015……..
In Australia, the industry is blocked by a legislated ban on “nuclear action” in national environment laws. Tony Irwin, technical director of SMR Nuclear Technologies, acknowledges the political challenge of winning bipartisan support for change and believes nuclear plants will be built here only if communities volunteer to host them. He says some have expressed an interest, but declines to name them…….
The inquiry by the standing committee on the environment and energy is due to report back within four months.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/11/nuclear-energy-inquiry-is-angus-taylors-move-logical-or-just-for-the-backbench
August 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
One month for nuclear inquiry submissions, Daily Telegraph, Rebecca Gredley, Australian Associated Press, August 8, 2019
Australians have until next month to make a submission to the federal government’s inquiry into the feasibility of using nuclear energy as a local power source.
Submissions are open until September 16, with the hope of finalising the report by the end of the year…….
The committee will consider waste management, health and safety, environmental impacts, affordability and reliability, economic feasibility and workforce capability.
Security implications, community engagement and national consensus will also be reviewed.
Despite calling for the inquiry, Energy Minister Angus Taylor has continued sending mixed messages over his intentions with nuclear power……
The new probe will have regard to two previous inquiries, a 2016 look at the nuclear fuel cycle by the South Australian government and a 2006 review by the Howard government.
The SA inquiry recommended pursuing a dump for overseas nuclear waste in the state, which hit a wall ahead of the last state election.
However, a federal government proposal to store low-level and intermediate-level waste generated in Australia is subject to ongoing debate on a suitable location.
The Howard government review found Australia would need about 25 reactors to supply one-third of the nation’s electricity supply by 2050. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/one-month-for-nuclear-inquiry-submissions/news-story/50cdda8762cd616650dde4f662c065da
August 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
In a country currently engulfed in a gas price crisis, caused by the voracious appetite of the gas industry to export cheap gas and sell Australians expensive gas, are we really willing to believe that the solution to expensive gas is even more expensive energy from nuclear reactors? While renewables keep coming down in price, nuclear is only the energy source that keeps getting more, and more, expensive over time.
And if policymakers are trying to solve an energy crisis in 2019, why would they select a form of power generation that has a legacy of expensive delays and failures and, optimistically, takes a decade to build? It just doesn’t add up. Globally, reactors have taken decades. Of all nuclear reactors currently under construction, two-thirds are behind schedule and nearly half of those were delayed again in the last year.
In developed countries, even ones with existing nuclear industries, nuclear is a far more expensive form of electricity than any other alternative, according to numerous organisations (Lazard, the International Energy Agency, and Bloomberg – just to name a few). The independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report puts it even more bluntly and states that new nuclear energy ‘is simply not competitive under ordinary market economy rules anywhere’. Yes – anywhere. What makes nuclear a particularly poor choice for Australia is that we would be building nuclear where there isn’t any nuclear to begin with.
To ‘go nuclear’, Australia would have to start from scratch. Moratoriums would need to be lifted, and legislation would need to be drafted (and passed) to regulate the mining, enrichment, energy, transportation and storage phases of nuclear energy. Taxpayers will pay to set up the industry and end up subsidising reactors. In contrast, wind and solar generation keep getting cheaper. The CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator crunched the numbers last year and found nuclear energy would be far more expensive than current renewables with storage, which will only keep getting cheaper.
Even the Australian Nuclear Association admitted nuclear needs a carbon price to be competitive in Australia. Let that sink in. The Coalition boosters of nuclear energy are the same party which removed the one mechanism that could have made it anywhere near price competitive – talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But while you’re soaking in that irony, also realise that any carbon price which benefited nuclear power in Australia would provide just as much, if not more, benefit to renewable energy.
The cost of renewable energy is falling as fast today as the cost of computers fell a decade ago. As demand for renewables increases so too does the rate of innovation. Meanwhile, the exact opposite has happened with nuclear. In the US and France, where nearly half of nuclear power stations are located, the cost of building nuclear power stations has steadily increased. Major companies like Westinghouse Electric Company, who pinned their hopes to nuclear, have gone bankrupt and projects have been scrapped at enormous expense. France, and a range of other nuclear countries, are reducing their nuclear fleet.
And while nuclear boosters will be pointing to the growth in nuclear in China, it’s funny that these same people are far less likely to point out that renewable energy in China has increased twice as fast, and now produces double the energy nuclear generates. It is no coincidence that global demand for nuclear energy has slowed and nuclear energy has dropped from 17 per cent to 10 per cent as a proportion of the global energy mix in the last 20 years. Those who argue on the side of nuclear generally point to “small modular reactors” as the economical solution. Taylor specifically listed these mini-reactors as a new technology worth exploration.
On the surface, the economics of these mini-reactors sound plausible – they’d be smaller and mass produced in factory, and mass production leads to lower prices. But even the most cursory interrogation shows just how ridiculous these claims are. These mini-reactors would be made in new mega-factories that don’t exist – so you still have to build something large, expensive and complicated to have mini-reactors. The small number of mini-reactors that are under construction have seen delays and cost blowouts.
Secondly, for mass production to work you need customers. How many mini-reactors would Australia be willing to buy and where would we put them? If you think there’s not enough controversy over where one large nuclear reactor could be located, just wait until the government tries to dot mini nuclear reactors around the country. On top of all of that, each mini-reactor requires much of the same control technology as the large reactors, and are generally less efficient.
The costs of nuclear reactors are so high due to the safety requirements needed to avoid catastrophic situations like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima, and because meeting these requirements lead to multi-year construction blow outs. Even so the risks associated to nuclear power stations mean they are essentially uninsurable. If the operators did have to insure against the full risk of nuclear accidents, the premiums would make the cost of nuclear power prohibitively uncompetitive.
So, the government makes up the gap – with taxpayer dollars – as the insurer of last resort. So why is Taylor, whose primary mandate is to bring energy prices down, requesting an inquiry into literally one of the most expensive energy generation technologies? Could this be a distraction from the government’s complete and utter lack of energy and climate policy?
As the Prime Minister flies to the Pacific Island Forum on Tuesday, he will now be armed with another sorry excuse as to why Australia is not expediting the transition to renewables and storage: ‘Sorry, we are still looking into nuclear’. But in the end, whatever is sparking this debate is less important than the economic and safety risks of nuclear. You don’t need to be an economist to see that nuclear power is an expensive and dated solution.
Richie Merzian is climate and energy program director at the Australia Institute.
August 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
|
Although a parliamentary inquiry is revisiting the possibility of nuclear power in Australia, recent history suggests any support is unlikely to gain critical mass.
when it delivered its findings, the [South Australian ]royal commission found that a nuclear power plant was not commercially viable, and this was considered to have killed off any prospect of a nuclear-powered Australia.
the federal government’s determination to keep the nuclear option alive a source of confusion to many in South Australia and beyond.
the legislative and regulatory work required to choose a site, select designs, approve them, build prototypes and carefully oversee the process to completion would take at least two decades. “And that is being optimistic,”
“There’s a core group of mainly older white blokes who think nuclear is a great idea”
The pipe dream of nuclear power https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2019/08/10/the-pipe-dream-nuclear-power/15653592008587, By Royce Kurmelovs.
When the federal energy minister, Angus Taylor, announced a new parliamentary inquiry into what it would take for Australia to get into the nuclear power business, he might have expected a bigger headline.
In a letter sent last Friday, the minister said the inquiry would “consider the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power” and that he was confident the multi-party committee was “the best way to consider this issue in a sensible way”.
Taylor, himself a long-time advocate for nuclear power, made the announcement on the heels of a recent campaign by Coalition MPs and the Australian Minerals Council to consider the economic benefits of going nuclear.
Queensland MP Ted O’Brien, chair of the standing committee on the environment and energy, which will oversee the inquiry, said he took seriously the responsibility handed to him, and the committee would “determine the circumstances under which future Coalition or Labor governments might consider nuclear energy generation”.
O’Brien stressed the Coalition government had no current plans to lift the moratorium on nuclear power generation.
All told, it was an odd series of qualifiers for an announcement meant to shock, leading some observers to ask: Why bother? Continue reading →
|
August 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Australian government brushes off UN’s urgent climate warning, SBS News 9 Aug 19 Humanity faces increasingly painful trade-offs between food security and rising temperatures within decades unless emissions are curbed and unsustainable farming and deforestation halted, according to a landmark climate assessment.
The federal emissions reduction minister has defended Australia’s land management practices after a new United Nations climate change report called for changes in the way the world produces and consumes food.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned efforts to limit global warming while feeding a booming population could be wrecked without swift and sweeping changes to how we use the land we live off.
The report on land use and climate change highlighted the need to protect remaining tropical forests as a bulkhead against future warming. It offered a sobering take on the hope that reforestation and bio-fuel schemes alone can offset mankind’s environmental damage, underlining that reducing emissions will be central to averting disaster.
“Land is a source of emissions as well as a sink,” IPCC chair Hoesung Lee told AFP.
“Obviously you want to reduce emissions from land as much as possible. But that has a lot to do with what’s happening to the other side of the equation: greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from the energy sector.”
But Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said Australia is already absorbing emissions from land management. “This is a very, very important success story in Australia. Farmers, in particular, haven’t been given the credit they deserve for the role, the enormous role, they’ve played on this front,” he told ABC News on Friday.
But the minister brushed off concerns about the role meat-heavy diets play in climate change, suggesting the report was “forcing” people to become vegan……..
Land is intimately linked to climate. With its forests, plants, and soil it sucks up and stores around one-third of all man-made emissions. Intensive exploitation of these resources also produces huge amounts of planet-warming CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, while agriculture guzzles up 70 percent of Earth’s freshwater supply.
National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson said the food warning should send “a shiver down your spine”…….
As the global population balloons towards 10 billion by mid-century, how land is managed by governments, industry and farmers will play a key role in limiting or accelerating the worst excesses of climate change.
Farmers for Climate Action want the federal government to implement a national strategy on climate change and agriculture, and to speed up the transition to clean energy.
“With NSW marking one year since it was 100 per cent drought-declared … and farmers across the country hurting from droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, it is clear that climate change is already hurting Australian agriculture,” the group said in a statement……https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-government-brushes-off-un-s-urgent-climate-warning
August 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
One month for nuclear inquiry submissions, 9 News, Aug 7, 2019 Australians have until next month to make a submission to the federal government’s inquiry into the feasibility of using nuclear energy as a local power source.
Submissions are open until September 16, with the hope of finalising the report by the end of the year……
“This inquiry will provide the opportunity to establish whether nuclear energy would be feasible and suitable for Australia in the future, taking into account both expert opinions and community views.”
The committee will consider waste management, health and safety, environmental impacts, affordability and reliability, economic feasibility and workforce capability.
August 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
|
Pro-nuclear former Gilmore candidate Warren Mundine weighs in on federal inquiry into nuclear energy, South Coast Register, , 7Aug 19
Former Liberal candidate for Gilmore Warren Mundine has called for “sensible debate” on nuclear power and for the ban to be lifted.
Mr Mundine said he was supportive of nuclear energy as it was the only source of energy that “doesn’t produce CO2 and works 24/7″……
“We had a similar debate in South Australia several years ago… they had a community consultation process and in the end it was decided not to move forward. …
The comments come in light of Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s decision to request a parliamentary enquiry into nuclear power.
A ban on nuclear energy has been in place in Australia since 1998, the legislation prohibits anyone from operating a nuclear power plant or enrichment facility.
Gilmore MP Fiona Phillips was staunch in her opposition to nuclear power during the last federal election and addressed the issue again in her maiden speech to Parliament last Tuesday.
“Accidents happen, natural disasters happen, the risk it poses to human health are profound, let alone the risks to the reputations of our primary producers, hospitality and tourism industries that thrive on our environment,” she told the lower house.
“We will fight this every day … I will never accept a nuclear power plant being built in our community.”….
Mr Mundine, who was former national president of the Australian Labor Party, said he believed some Labor MPs supported nuclear but were afraid to speak out on the topic…. https://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/6315093/mundine-wants-sensible-debate-on-nuclear-power-and-ban-lifted/
|
|
August 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Apparently, in order to placate Barnaby Joyce and others, there will be a Parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power. I was thinking of putting a boring submission restating all the reasons why nuclear power will never happen in Australia, but that seemed pretty pointless.
Given that the entire exercise is founded in fantasy, I’m thinking it would be better to suspend disbelief and ask what we need if nuclear power is to have a chance here. The answer is in two parts:
- Repeal the existing ban on nuclear power
- Impose a carbon price high enough to make new nuclear power cheaper than existing coal (and, ideally gas) fired power stations
My initial estimate, based on the Hinkley C contract in the UK (price of $A160/MWh) is that the required price is at least $100/tonne of CO2. Rough aritmetic follows: Black coal emits about 1 tonne/MWh, and costs around $40/MWh to generate, so it would be slightly cheaper in the short run. Similarly for brown coal, which has higher emissions, but is cheaper to run.. But at those prices, it would be uneconomic to do the repairs necessary to keep existing coal-fired plants in operation past, say, 2030.
If such a policy were adopted, perhaps to be phased in over a decade or so, the immediate impact would be a massive expansion of renewables and big incentives for energy efficiency. But, if the arguments of nuclear fans about the need for baseload energy turn out to be right, there would be some room for nuclear to enter the mix after about 2040.
Of course, nothing remotely like this will happen. It’s rather more likely that Barnaby and the committee will discover a working technology for cold fusion, based on harnessing unicorns.
August 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Paul Richards While nuclear power in Australia has a somewhat shaky business case, a much stronger argument can be made for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle: storing nuclear waste’ Heiko Timmers Associate Professor of Physics, UNSW
A case can be made, that’s true.
However, the nuclear industry never talks about the whole nuclear fuel cycle. Furthermore, no one in the nuclear estate has proved they can look after unspent nuclear fuel, and contaminated material for the time needed without an indefinite supply of sovereign wealth.
What you are proposing is that Australia enters the sales channels of waste storage, for the profit of a very limited few in the nuclear estate. An unrealistic proposal, as no other nation has been able to solve this back door nuclear waste issue that even the IAEA admits, there is no economically viable solution for.
Unlike all the other sales channels in this nuclear estate, waste storage in terms of cost is indefinite, and on that basis, the cost is then based on our sovereign wealth. In other words, an indefinite cost to our Australian taxpayer’s.
The key takeaway is;
there is no way that nuclear waste storage as a business is economically viable, as the nuclear war hawks propose, it will be a cost to Australia indefinitely.
However, introducing nuclear waste storage as a sales channel for the nuclear estate changes our Federal Legislation of nuclear non-proliferation and that is the ‘Trojan Horse’ being wheeled out yet again. In yet another amoral attempt at introducing;
• nuclear energy,
• waste, and
• weapons,
despite developed nuclear nations phasing out nuclear fuel as obsolete, because the energy system is unviable economically and environmentally.
August 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Labor fires warning shot on nuclear power, https://www.9news.com.au/national/labor-fires-warning-shot-on-nuclear-power/072b8a0a-e2a6-421e-a83c-a1c358424be1, By AAP
Aug 4, 2019 Labor has demanded the federal government outline potential locations for nuclear power plants after establishing a parliamentary inquiry into an Australian industry.
Energy Minister Angus Taylor has requested the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy to investigate nuclear as a power source for Australia.
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese suggested the inquiry showed the government was softening its position on lifting the ban on nuclear power.
“What the government has to come up with is exactly where is it considering putting nuclear power plants around our coastlines or next to the rivers?” he told the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday.
Conservative Liberal and Nationals MPs have been pushing for the inquiry, arguing nuclear could be a way to drive power prices down and cut emissions.
But Mr Albanese said the issue had been examined many times before, with studies showing it would be three times more expensive than wind or solar when connected to other systems.
He said construction of nuclear plants had emissions-intensive construction and used large volumes of water, meaning they had to be near rivers or the coast.
We know, of course, from incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima that it’s very dangerous,” the Labor leader said.
Mr Albanese said the government was in its third term and still didn’t have an energy policy.
“Now they’re off on this frolick, giving a parliamentary committee the scope to run around the country and consider matters that have been considered by the experts before,” he said.
August 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 