BHP’s Olympic Dam uranium mine: tailings dump to larger than Adelaide and up to 30 metres high
All BHP Olympic Dam radioactive toxic mine tailings waste must be isolated from the environment for over 10,000 years…
Please consider making a submission to the federal government who are inviting comments on the BHP Olympic Dam Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) 6 project – but only up to cob Friday 28th June, with no extensions (scroll down for info). Tell the fed’s they must not just approve this TSF 6 on the basis of the vested interest BHP Referral documents.
Key Recommendations are provided along with two Briefing papers prepared for Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) and available on-line:
“BHP seek a Toxic Tailings Expansion without a full Safety Risk Assessment” (DN, June 2019, 3 pages)
https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ODM-Tailings-Briefing-22June2019.pdf
and
“Migratory Birds at Risk of Mortality if BHP continues use of Evaporation Ponds” (DN, June 2019, 3 pages)
https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ODM-Migratory-Birds-BHP-Evaporation-Ponds-22June2019.pdf
A set of Key Recommendations on these issues to put to the federal government:
1. The Olympic Dam operation be assessed in its entirety with the full range of project impacts subject to public consultation
Given that uranium mining at Olympic Dam is a controlled “nuclear action” and Matter of National Environmental Significance (NES) under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the integrity of environmental protection requires that the entire Olympic Dam operation be subject to impact assessment so that regulatory conditions can be applied “to consider impacts on the whole environment”. Continue reading
Queensland’s nuclear cowboy MPs join One Nation’s Marlk Latham to push for nuclear power
Nationals MPs urge rethink on nuclear, THE AUSTRALIAN GRAHAM LLOYD, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR, 24 JUNE 19, Scott Morrison is being asked to support a full investigation of nuclear energy in Australia.
Queensland Coalition MPs Keith Pitt and James McGrath have drafted a letter to the Prime Minister together with proposed terms of reference for an inquiry, which will be delivered this week.
The letter will call for a review of advances in nuclear energy including small nuclear reactors and thorium technology, both of which could produce less radioactive waste than existing nuclear plants.
Commercial investigation of nuclear energy will require that a ban on considering the technology be removed from the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Mr Pitt said that the nuclear issue was “a debate we are ready to have”.
“In our view the technology has moved on and small modular reactors and thorium need to be investigated,” Mr Pitt said.
…….. Critics of nuclear energy claim it would be unable to compete economically with renewable energy and storage.
……. The Morrison government has been reluctant to consider changes to the EPBC Act on nuclear power. But the act in its entirety is up for statutory review this year.
……. The Nationals MPs expect a public review to take from 18 months to two years.
The call for a national inquiry coincides with a review into the potential of nuclear power in NSW, to include former federal Labor Party leader and newly elected One Nation MP Mark Latham.
Mr Latham has introduced a bill in the upper house of the NSW parliament to repeal the uranium mining and nuclear ban in the state.
A parliamentary inquiry will be held by the eight-member, multi-party Standing Committee on State Development of the upper house. Mr Latham will be a member of the committee.
An issues paper is being prepared by the NSW Parliamentary Research Service for public release. The committee will call for submissions and is likely to conduct public hearings as early as September. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nationals-mps-urge-rethink-on-nuclear/news-story/4c5c90a4b49f890dba49a10444f1294d
Robert Parker still pushing the fantasy that nuclear power could be viable in Australia
Australian Nuclear Association vice-president Robert Parker joins Jane to discuss the future of the industry in Australia.
Australian States taking the lead on energy policy, as renewable energy generates more Queensland jobs than coal does,
It’s ironic, perhaps, that in an election cycle where a number of regional Queenslanders voted for the promise of blue-collar jobs, backing the party that backed the Adani coal project, renewables generated more than 13,000 actual jobs in construction, with a lot of that activity in north Queensland.
Liberal states in talks to revive Turnbull’s dumped energy policy In Canberra, a month on from Scott Morrison’s election victory, there is talk of feasibility studies for a new Queensland coal plant, and a nascent nuclear debate. But if we shift our vantage point to Adelaide, Australia’s near-term energy outlook looks very different.
Dan Van Holst Pellekaan, the Liberal energy minister, is talking about South Australia hitting 100% net renewables by the 2030s. When asked to explain what that means, he tells Guardian Australia “producing more renewable energy in South Australia than we need for our own consumption and exporting the surplus”.
There is no talk of coal, apart from the inevitability of its displacement.
The South Australian renewables export plan relies on a new interconnector with New South Wales. Van Holst Pellekaan says if the proposed interconnector is approved, there are opportunities to construct large-scale solar and wind farms in the north-east of the state, on pastoral land, adjacent to the transmission equipment. “Then we start to displace coal in NSW,” he says. “It’s not just about a bit of renewable energy making a difference … that’s where you start to get a really big win on emissions reduction.”
But pushing ahead with that kind of progress is much easier if there’s a national framework driving the transition. Post-election, Van Holst Pellekaan wants Canberra back at the table being collaborative, implementing a coherent energy policy.
What the South Australian doesn’t say, but is obvious to people who know how the Coag energy council works, is the states can force this issue if they choose to.
If they can agree among themselves about what needs to happen, they can create a framework setting out the rules of the road even if the commonwealth resists.
Liberal states drive energy policy reboot Continue reading
Sydney City Council. Mayor Clover Moore to declare city climate emergency
Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore said Australia’s largest city needed to step up and show global leadership, especially given the failure of “successive federal governments (which) have shamefully presided over a climate disaster”.
Liberal Sydney Councillor, Craig Chung, one of two Liberal councillors who plan to oppose the motion, told The Australian while he supported action on climate change, he strongly objected to Ms Moore’s “hysterical, catastrophising” message.
“Language like climate emergency, climate catastrophe and extinction rebellion do nothing to further reasoned and rational debate,” Mr Chung said.
“If we learned one thing from the May 18 (federal) election, polarised fear mongering is not what the community want. The electorate expects us to take action, debate clearly and rationally about solutions, stop weaponising language and to deliver measurable and tangible outcomes for all Australians.”
Mr Chung said he would be proposing an amended version of the lord mayoral motion, stripped of all its “hysterical elements”.
Ms Moore said the nation was now experiencing such extreme weather “91 of the hottest places on Earth were in Australia”.
She said heatwaves across the country were now five times more likely, and “even more alarming — they start earlier, become hotter and last longer”.
“Seventy per cent of the world’s emissions are generated from cities, so the action city governments take is absolutely critical,” Ms Moore said.
Ms Moore has asked Council to call on the Federal Government to respond urgently to the emergency, by reintroducing a price on carbon to meet the Paris Agreement emissions reduction targets, and establishing a Just Transition Authority to ensure Australians employed in fossil fuel industries find appropriate alternate employment.
“Successive federal governments have shamefully presided over a climate disaster, and now we are at a critical juncture — we face a climate emergency,” she said.
“Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased for four consecutive years. It is clear that the current Federal Government’s policies are simply not working and I call on council to declare a climate emergency, step up our efforts to hold the Federal Government to account. “With 96 per cent of NSW still drought affected, our farmers and rural communities are being decimated by drought, suffering from water shortages and extended bush fire seasons, witnessing unprecedented fish kills and the death of once mighty river systems.”
The Lord Mayor, outlining the City of Sydney’s action on climate change since 2008, committed to accelerate work in the development of its strategic plan till 2050.
“We set a goal to reduce our emissions by 70 per cent by 2030, and — following the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 — we set a more ambitious goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050”, she said.
“We became Australia’s first carbon neutral council in 2007, and as of June 2017, we’d reduced emissions in our own operations by 25 per cent. By 2020, we will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, allowing us to meet our 2030 target by 2024 — six years early.”
According to the International Climate Emergency Forum, over 600 jurisdictions in 13 countries have now declared a climate emergency. The Climate Emergency Declaration campaign in Australia is supported by over 50 climate action groups, including the International Climate Emergency Forum, Extinction Rebellion, and Greenpeace Australia.
Resources Minister Matt Canavan changes his tune – now REJECTS nuclear power !
What a waste: Minister’s question for nuclear inquiry, Courier Mail, 21 June 19, RESOURCES Minister Matt Canavan has shied away from backing an inquiry into nuclear power in Australia, as he warns a permanent home would need to be found for high-level waste first.
He said a facility to store low-level radioactive waste from medical facilities had not been agreed on, despite a 40-year search.
Some of his Queensland LNP colleagues, led by Member for Hinkler Keith Pitt and Senator James McGrath, are pushing for a two-year inquiry into nuclear power
Senator Canavan said he did not believe it stacked up financially and it could cost more to generate power than existing energy sources.
He said the British Government had recently underwritten a nuclear power station, guaranteeing a price of $140/megawatt hour, which is higher than the $100/megawatt hour price currently paid in Australia.
“I don’t think it’s the right choice right now for Australia, mainly from a financial and cost perspective,” Senator Canavan said.
“The Government’s focus has been on getting prices down in Australia.
“That’s why right now I don’t think the current technology of nuclear technology is a solution to that.”
Senator Canavan also warned that a facility for storing high-level radioactive waste would need to be found. “We have been trying for 40 years to find a long-term repository for radioactive waste that is produced at Lucas Heights (nuclear reactor in Sydney) and some legacy waste we have from other activities,” he said.
“If we can’t find a permanent home for low-level radioactive waste associated with nuclear medicines, we’ve got a pretty big challenge dealing with the high-level waste that would be produced by any energy facilities.”
But he said he welcomed his colleagues bringing forth significant policy issues, and would speak to them seeking further detail.
Senator McGrath and Mr Pitt said this week they would write to the Prime Minister seeking his support for an inquiry into nuclear power to go ahead, given it has been more than a decade since the previous investigation.
Australian Nuclear Association lobbies government with its “nuclear vision”
Australians urged to adopt nuclear power, World Nuclear News, 20 June 2019 The 
Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) has appealed to Australians to understand that nuclear energy is ready to make a valuable contribution to low emission dispatchable generation for Australia…… Although it is home to the 20 MWt Opal research reactor, nuclear power has been prohibited in Australia since 1998 under two Acts of Parliament: the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.In a declaration yesterday, signed by ANA President Dr Mark Ho, ANA noted that nuclear energy supplies 10% of the world’s electricity “safely, reliably, cleanly and economically”…….
To achieve these benefits, Australia needs to do nine things, the declaration says.
These are: repeal long-outdated federal and state legislation preventing its proper consideration; initiate informed public debate towards achieving social licence while acknowledging concerns of safe waste disposal and radiation protection; commit to a genuinely technology-neutral long-term energy policy; focus on affordability, reliability and sustainability, accounting for total system costs in establishing the optimal mix of low emission technologies; enhance Australia’s internationally respected nuclear regulatory regime; facilitate supportive international technology exchange linkages; invite proposals to establish the business case; enhance research and development, drawing on ANSTO’s facilities and expertise; and support every level of education and training needed by emerging industries.
ANA “strongly encourages” the governments of Australia and its states and territories and industry to deliver this vision. “We will contribute to balanced and open public education and communicate constructively with the media on the benefits of nuclear power to help Australia develop a safe, reliable and cost-effective energy sector,” it adds.
ANA is an independent incorporated scientific institution made up of people from the professions, business, government and universities with an interest in nuclear topics. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Australians-urged-to-adopt-nuclear-power
“Chernobyl” miniseries is scary, but the dis-economics of nuclear power for Australia is scary, too
What’s more chilling: watching Chernobyl or cogitating on the cost of going nuclear? Michael West Investigative Journalism Jun 20, 2019, The sudden push by the Murdoch media and Coalition right-wingers to overturn Australia’s nuclear power ban ignores the chilling economic cost — huge public subsidies, storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, the heavy costs of decommissioning and, potentially, radiation-related health costs. Veteran nuclear writer Noel Wauchope reports on the popular TV series, Chernobyl, and the economics of nuclear power.
THE frightening TV miniseries “Chernobyl” could put a few Australians off the idea of nuclear power but nuclear economics might turn out to be the bigger scare.
It is bad news for the Minerals Council of Australia and nuclear lobbyists, that Chernobyl has now arrived on some Australian TV screens, but pro-nuclear advocates are continuing to push their campaign anyway.
The miniseries “Chernobyl” has just finished in Europe and USA, outdoing “Game of Thrones” in popularity. HBO’s Chernobyl topped film and TV database IMDB’s list of the greatest 250 TV shows of all time. The first episode was screened on 12 June, 2019 in Australia, on Foxtel.
The series has had a big impact. It was highly praised by numerous reviewers but criticised by pro-nuclear lobbyists, and infuriated some Russian politicians. ………
The Coalition’s renewed push for nuclear power
In March this year, 11 Coalition MPs (Andrew Broad, James Paterson, Tony Pasin, Tim Wilson, Chris Back, Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, Andrew Hastie, Warren Entsch, Bridget McKenzie and Rowan Ramsey) urged then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to put nuclear power on the table as an electricity source for Australia. That call is now repeated by Queensland and Coalition MPs calling for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he is open to considering nuclear power if it can stand on its own two feet. Energy Minister Angus Taylor told The Guardianon 12 June 2019 he wouldn’t rule out revising Australia’s nuclear ban “when there is a very clear business case which shows the economics of this can work”. Two days later, Environment Minister Sussan Ley also told TheGuardian she was open to the review considering a removal of the ban.
But — are the economics of nuclear power viable for Australia?
When even Australia’s former top nuclear promoter has doubts, it doesn’t look promising……….
How viable is nuclear power elsewhere?
Nuclear economics in America is really a tale of woe. You hardly know where to start, in trying to assess how much this industry is costing communities and tax-payers. There are the attempts to save the nuclear industry via subsidies. There are the continuing and ever-increasing costs of radioactive wastes. There are the compensation payments to workers with radiation-caused illnesses, $15.5 billion and counting, and the legal battles over where to put the wastes. Needless to say, really, America is not initiating any new nuclear “big build”. The much touted “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” are turning out to have no market and little prospect of being economically viable……
The UK nuclear industry is in the doldrums with repeated postponement of new projects – Hinkley Point C, Wylfa Newydd, Moorside, Sizewell C, Oldbury B and Bradwell B……The 2018 forecast for future clean-up of Britain’s aging 17 nuclear power stations has blown out to £121 billion which has had to be spread across the next 120 years……
France’s Flamanville nuclear project is taking years, remains bogged down with costly problems. Electricite de France (EDF) has financial woes but hopes to save itself by switching from nuclear to renewables. France’s former nuclear giant AREVA went bankrupt and has changed its name to Orano and Framatome — and French tax-payers are still caught up in Areva/Orano costly legal corruption scandals.
Canada is up for increasing costs for managing its nuclear wastes. Interestingly, Canada abandoned its nuclear project for producing medical radioisotopes and now leads in non nuclear production of these isotopes.
India had grand plans for nuclear power, but has cut these back, and recently cancelled 57 reactors. It continues to have problems and many outages, at its huge Kudankulam nuclear station. ….
Russia keeps offering “generous” funding to the buyer countries. But will those countries end up with big debts? Reuters reports that in China, “No new approvals have been granted for the past three years, amid spiralling costs” ………….. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/whats-more-chilling-watching-chernobyl-or-cogitating-the-cost-of-going-nuclear/
Liberal and National party MPs mistaken. Nuclear power WAS investigated in 2015, and found to be uneconomic
Robyn Wood, 20 June 19, The Liberal and National party MPs are mistaken when they say that nuclear power hasn’t been investigated since nuclear physicist Ziggy Switowski. They need to be aware that the South Australian government had a Nuclear Royal Commission in 2015/6. The majority pro nuclear power members found that nuclear power was not economic compared to renewables. Renewable technology is rapidly improving and the price dropping, while nuclear power plant costs are rapidly escalating and plants being shut down across the world. The report is available online. Even Mr Switkowski said in 2018 “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed”. Now is not the time to waste precious taxpayer’s money but to get on building renewables that are cheaper than even coal.
GOLD Coast-based Federal MP Karen Andrews OK with nuclear power, but exactly where on the Gold Coast?
Gold Coast nuclear plant in the mix: but where would you put it on the tourist strip? , Gold Coast Bulletin, 19 June 19
GOLD Coast-based Federal MP Karen Andrews has been challenged on where she would want a nuclear plant on the Glitter Strip after not ruling out the energy option.
Ms Andrews, the Member for McPherson, was on Sky News today when asked about nuclear energy following the release of CSIRO’s Australian National Outlook report.
The report compares two versions of the Australia in 2060, and predicts the nation will enter a “slow decline” if challenges are not met head on.
The Industry, Science and Technology Minister was asked about the findings including that Australia could reach zero emissions by 2050.
But she admitted coal would be “part of the energy mix for some time in the future”.
Asked about nuclear energy, Ms Andrews replied: “I don’t have an issue with it being considered.”
Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler seized on the comments saying it was another senior Liberal backing nuclear.
“We know nuclear power plants need to be built near water so would Minister Andrews, the Member for McPherson, like the nuclear power stations in her electorate, lining the Gold Coast,” he said.
“Would the Minister prefer the nuclear plant in Coolangatta, Robina, Burleigh Heads or Palm Beach? Scott Morrison needs to make his position clear.”
Mr Butler said the Prime Minister last year had indicated “where something can stack up and can actually bring the prices down, well I’m all for it.”
“Just last week, Energy Minister Angus Taylor told would not rule out nuclear power either saying, ‘If there is a clear business case there is a clear business case’,” Mr Butler said.
“The pressure is now on Scott Morrison to take real action to end the energy crisis that emerged under the Liberal Government. “So far, all the Liberals are promising in energy is expensive new coal-fired power stations and a growing pressure from Morrison’s backbench for Australia to pursue even more expensive nuclear power.”
Australians’ support for nuclear plants rising – but most don’t want to live near one
Essential poll finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants and 40% oppose them
Australians are slightly more inclined to support nuclear power plants than oppose them, but a clear majority of voters do not want to live near one, according to new polling.
With nuclear power making a return to the national political agenda, a new survey from Essential finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants, up four points since the question was last asked in November 2015, and 40% oppose them.
But asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement “I would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, only 28% agreed and 60% disagreed.
The new survey comes as some members of the Coalition are pushing for an inquiry into the viability of nuclear energy and the federal energy and environment ministers have left the door open to lifting Australia’s ban on nuclear power as part of a review of environmental regulations.
During the recent election campaign Scott Morrison insisted he had no plans to reverse the current ban on nuclear energy, after earlier suggesting he could be open to it if proposals stood on their own two feet.
While the internal positioning within the Coalition is nascent, influential industry groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia have been lobbying to overturn the ban. In the event the Morrison government ultimately proceeds with a legislative effort to end the prohibition, it is possible it could get the numbers in the new Senate even if Labor and the Greens oppose the shift.
The Australian Conservatives senator Cory Bernardi told Guardian Australia: “I’m all for it” – although he said he was not supportive of either a carbon price or government subsidies to make nuclear technology economically viable.
Bernardi said parliament should remove the ban and then let proponents determine whether power plants were viable or not.
The Centre Alliance senator Stirling Griff said it was possible the micro-party, which has two Senate votes, could support ending the nuclear ban. “We don’t have a closed mind on this, but we are a long way from having an open one,” he said. “I’m not there yet, but that’s not to say we won’t get there in the future.”
Griff said if any change was to be made it would need to be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and regulations to ensure safety and public confidence, and he said he was not sure Australian voters favoured the change.
The returning Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie is yet to flag her position publicly on a range of issues but in 2015 said: “Apart from hydro, the only way to decarbonise energy is to move very quickly to nuclear. And it’s about time we move to that option.”
The Switkowski review concluded that Australia could establish a nuclear industry, and nuclear power plants – which don’t emit carbon pollution – could make a useful contribution to Australia’s abatement task, but setting up the industry would take between 10 and 15 years. That review also concluded nuclear energy would not be viable without a carbon price.
A more recent inquiry in South Australia, while supportive of the industry, said a nuclear power plant would not be viable in the state even under carbon pricing policies consistent with achieving the well below 2C target agreed in Paris in December “because other low-carbon generation would be taken up before nuclear”.
Separate to the renewed nuclear debate, the mining giant BHP has submitted a plan to build a new tailings dam at South Australia’s Olympic Dam uranium mine within months.
Dave Sweeney, nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “Any increase in the footprint of Olympic Dam would mean an increase in the complexity and cost of future clean-up and rehabilitation.
“Cleaning up a uranium mine is never easy and always costly. BHP must be required to ensure there is the dedicated financial capacity to fund this clean-up work. It cannot be allowed to become a future burden to the SA community.”
The new survey from Essential says a majority of the sample 54% believe nuclear energy would be a reliable energy source for the future (28% disagree) and almost half the people in the survey, 47%, think nuclear would before better for the environment than coal-fired generation (30% disagree).
A majority, 63%, think having a nuclear industry in Australia would create skilled jobs, with 22% disagreeing. Even though nuclear energy is expensive, just over half the sample, 51%, think nuclear would help lower power prices (26% disagree).
John Howard established a review of nuclear power in the run-up to the 2007 election.
Victorian Liberal Democrat David Limbrick gets it wrong about nuclear power
Denmark: 1985 law passed by the Danish parliament, prohibiting power production from nuclear energy in Denmark.
Austria has no nuclear power plants. As a result of a public referendum in 1978,Austria follows a strictly non-nuclear energy policy.
Greece has no nuclear power plants
Iceland has no nuclear power plants
Victorian crossbenchers go nuclear, SBS 17 June 19, A couple of Victorian crossbenchers want to explore lifting the state’s bans around uranium and nuclear power in an effort to tackle climate change.
Two of Victoria’s crossbench want the parliament to explore lifting the state’s bans on nuclear activities in an effort to tackle climate change.
The Liberal Democrats this week in the upper house will table a motion to establish a parliamentary inquiry expand the nuclear industry including uranium mining, exploration and exports, power generation, waste management, industrial and medical applications.
“If we have these issues with climate change we need to look at all the options available to us and at the moment we’ve got laws prohibiting certain options and we think that those options should be on the table,” Liberal Democrats MP David Limbrick told AAP….The minor party is still working to garner support for their inquiry, but would hope if it gets up it would be completed in about 12 months. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victorian-crossbenchers-go-nuclear
Australian government’s own data shows that its greenhouse gas emissions policy is failing
 Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund is failing to deliver, government data shows, ABC News
Key points:
The Emissions Reduction Fund also appears to be failing in its mission to lower emissions, Government data shows. In 2014, the Abbott government allocated $2.55 billion to the newly established Emissions Reduction Fund, mostly to pay polluters to emit less greenhouse gas. The Morrison Government has extended the program with an additional $2 billion and rebranded it the Climate Solutions Fund. Twice a year, the Clean Energy Regulator holds reverse auctions, where companies bid to win the emissions reduction work. The cheapest good-quality bids win and are awarded Emissions Reduction Fund contracts. Those contracts are for a range of projects, including planting trees, stopping tree-clearing and installing energy efficient appliances. Data shows flatlining of emissions reductionThe ABC examined figures from 10 different datasets published by the Government’s Clean Energy Regulator — a series of auction results published in separate PDFs, as well as two spreadsheets containing information about the status of Emissions Reduction Fund contracts and projects…….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/australian-emissions-reduction-fund-data-analysis/11164476 |
|
Adani is not about jobs, and never really was,
|
Adani is not about jobs, and never really was, https://www.smh.com.au/national/adani-is-not-about-jobs-and-never-really-was-20190614-p51xu0.html, By Matt Holden June 16, 2019 So Adani gets its final environmental approval from the Queensland government, and central Queensland gets the jobs it voted for in the federal election: “an enormous win for regional jobs”, according to Queensland LNP Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington.What that amounts to is about 1500 jobs in the construction phase – which at two years won’t even get us to the next federal election – and maybe 100 when the mine is operating, at least according to University of Queensland economist Professor John Quiggin. It feels like you can believe whatever you want about Adani, or at least whatever suits your world view. But Adani was never really about jobs. “Adani” is a litmus test in Australian politics: you are either for Adani, which means you are for economic prosperity and development of Australia’s regions, or you are against Adani, in which case you are against prosperity, against people who need jobs, even against central Queensland itself. The simplistic dualism suits politicians whose business it is to squabble over political power and to mediate that squabble through culture wars (this one over coal, the next one over religious freedom, who knows what after that) rather than the work of making real policy. It also suits the interests that will benefit from Adani – mining companies, fossil-fuel investors, construction and mining unions. Adani has become more than a coal mine (although it’s not even that yet, and maybe never will be). It’s part of a narrative in Australian politics that poses a false choice between jobs and the environment, framed as the difference between living in the real world and living in the inner-city bubble, Continue reading |
Australia’s governments keen to frack up the land with coal, gas, nuclear
|
Coal, Gas, Nuclear – What A Fracked Up Week In Australia https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/fracking-nuclear-adani-mb1095/ June 14, 2019 by Adani’s coal mine another step closer, fracking to kick off in the NT (WA soon too?) and our energy minister hasn’t shut the door on nuclear power. Thank <insert choice of deity here> it’s Friday.Fossil fuel advocates will be punching the air and high-fiving each other with some recent news, while nuclear energy supporters in Australia may also see a glimmer of hope for their cause.
The Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES) approved Adani’s Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Management Plan (GDEMP) for its Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin yesterday. This means the company can now start some work on the mine. Federal Employment Minister Michaelia Cash reportedly stated it was a great win for Queenslanders and that “we need to take a long, hard look at red and green tape in Australia”. When I mentioned the approval to SQ’s Ronald, he said:
While the news will come as a major disappointment to many, the Greens say the fight sn’t over yet – not by a long shot.
Before the first chunks of coal can be pulled from the ground, Adani will still need to gain other federal environmental approvals and a royalties agreement is yet to be finalised. Among the hurdles remaining is the little detail of getting the coal out of the area, with a shadow still looming over the Carmichael Rail Network; intended to link the Carmichael mine with Abbot Point Port near Bowen. Questions also remain as to whether the mine is even financially viable, but Adani remains bullish on this. The Greens say it will use whatever means are available in parliament, the courts and on the streets to try to prevent the mine going ahead; including continuing to push for a climate trigger in Australia’s environmental laws.
Referred to as a “carbon bomb”, the Carmichael mine has approvals to rip out up to 60 million tonnes of thermal coal annually, but Adani is reportedly planning to produce about 27.5 million tonnes. More on the decision, the mine and some concerns aside from the massive amounts of carbon emissions and toxins that will be unleashed from burning what is pulled from it can be viewed here and here. New Code Enables Fracking Up The NT To BeginEarlier this week, the Northern Territory Labor Government finalised the Code of Practice for the NT’s onshore gas industry; i.e. fracking.
It’s now game on for fracking in the Territory. The fracking moratorium was lifted in April last year, but the Code needed to be completed before activities could begin – and it seems there’s a number of players not wanting to waste any time in getting started. While 49% of the Territory will be “frack-free”, it means there’s around 688,000 square kilometres that could potentially host fracking activity. An ABC report says exploration could begin in “days, if not weeks”. On a related note, across the border in Western Australia work is reportedly under way on what could be WA’s first fracking gasfield says Lock The Gate Alliance. However, regulations governing fracking in WA are yet to released or legislated. The WA Government has been clever in selling fracking, last year lifting the state’s moratorium but committing to using fracking royalties for funding new renewable energy projects. Angus Taylor On Nuclear Power – Willing To Consider It, But..Australia’s pro-nuclear lobby have also been thrown a bone; albeit a small, brittle one with sharp edges and very little meat left on it. The type you wouldn’t give to a dog as it would probably choke. Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor was quizzed by journalists in a doorstop interview on Wednesday about the potential for nuclear power in Australia. Here’s the relevant bits.
You can read the full exchange here. There’s little hope of a viable business case being presented. While Minister Taylor may not have closed the door on nuclear power in Australia himself, he doesn’t need to as it’s pretty much already shut. This is just a distraction – nuclear power is horribly expensive; meanwhile the costs of renewables such as wind and solar energy (and energy storage) continue to plummet. Minister Taylor also made some curious comments this week regarding LNG, stating Australia’s LNG boom is “ reducing our global carbon impact“. |
|
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 