No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 3 JUNE 17 The nuclear submarine push seems to have become the preferred “foot in the door” for nuclear. If we had nuclear submarines, refueling and the disposal of waste would still be in South Australia (according to Abbott) – out of mind of the Sydney/Melbourne populations.
Politicians talking about small nuclear reactors backfires for them because that implies the reactors will need to be near Sydney and Melbourne and that will stir up a lot of nuclear push back. So despite the questionable benefits of Australia having nuclear submarines, the nuclear lobby thinks it will get us “hooked” into the nuclear waste cycle.
The Cape Hardy port development and the large purchases of land around the port are probably already earmarked as the nuclear submarine maintenance location. The Abbott/lobbyists are even talking about “leasing” nuclear subs – they are so desperate to suck us in. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
July 3, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Surely it is no coincidence that, as the federal government – Resources Minister Matt Canavan – touts a further stage in the plan to park radioactive trash in rural South Australia, and the Liberals introduce a Bill 
to expand Australian Nuclear Science and Technology’s activities – our favourite pro nuclear shill, Ben Heard, joins others to promote the nu clear industry – in Adelaide Thurs 29 June
- Ben Heard, Founder & Executive Director, Bright New World Ben is recognised as a leading voice for the use of nuclear technologies to address our most pressing global challenges
- Nick Byrne, Chief Financial Officer, Heathgate Resources, – Uranium mining company, owned by USA weapons maker General Atomics
- Kyra Reznikov, Special Council, Finlaysons Lawyers, part in a study tour in the footsteps of the Royal Commission to visit nuclear sites in Finland, France and the UK
June 28, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Note – from MAPW – While cyclotron production of technetium is commercially licensed in Canada and undergoing clinical trials, it is still a while (?2years???) before it is a viable option for this particular isotope . And there are issues with the potentially limited and costly supply of the precursor materials. IN addition the heavily subsidised Australian isotopes will probably undercut the market (Similar to subsidising coal against the early phases of renewables-sigh).
But we can urge the government to partner in cyclotron research. And stop ramping up massively subsidised exports of Molybdenum which is used to make technetium isotopes.
Technetium 99 is the principal radioactive diagnostic isotope used in Australian medical procedures (80% IN 2015-16). This is currently supplied by ANSTO through production of Molybdenum 99 at the Lucas heights OPAL reactor – but Te-99 can also be produced by particle accelerators or cyclotrons which ANSTO is also capable of conducting – in fact it does so for other radioactive isotopes such as Fluorine 18, Carbon 15 & Oxygen 11.
Of the Mo 99 produced by the ANSTO OPAL reactor, currently only 28% is used in Australia whilst 72% is exported internationally. With the expansion of the Mo 99 production by a factor of at least 400% by the end of 2018 & Australia’s demand remaining static thru more efficient use of Te 99.
This means that whilst the nuclear waste will quadruple, the percentage of waste resulting from Australian consumption will drop to about 8%.
Proponents of the dump proclaim loudly that the Wallerberdina/Kimba dumps are needed to store Australian medical waste.
WHAT THEY FAIL TO MENTION IS THAT 90% WILL BE FROM INTERNATIONAL WASTE –
NOR DO THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAME MEDICAL BENEFIT CAN BE ACHIEVED
WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT ALL.
ANSTO barely breaks even with it’s exports, & they are ramping up production whilst global demand is static & new overseas production facilities are about to come on-line.
June 1, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
There isn’t the slightest chance that SMRs will fulfil the ambition of making nuclear power “radically 
cheaper” unless and until a manufacturing supply chain is mass producing SMRs for a mass market.
As things stand, no country, company or utility has any intention of betting billions on building an SMR supply chain. In the absence of a mass supply chain, SMRs will be expensive curiosities.
Ben Heard thinks Australia should take the lead building his preferred version of Generation IV fast neutron reactors.
So Australia ‒ a country with virtually no relevant expertise and even less experience ‒ should take the lead developing Generation IV reactors despite the fact that global nuclear industry giants face crippling debts and possible bankruptcy due to cost overruns building a handful of conventional reactors?
That proposition is beyond stupid and it was even rejected by the (stridently pro-nuclear) SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission last year.
New nuclear push digs deep into vault of alternative facts, Jim Green, 31 May 2017, RenewEconomy http://reneweconomy.com.au/new-nuclear-push-digs-deep-vault-alternative-facts-90295/
Australia’s nuclear energy debate reaches Peak Idiocy this week with the visit of Jessica Lovering from the U.S. Breakthrough Institute. Lovering has and will be speaking at public events alongside Australian university student Ben Heard.
Both the Breakthrough Institute and Heard’s ‘Bright New World’ present 
themselves as progressive environment groups but they are single-issue, pro-nuclear lobby groups with little interest in broader environmental issues. Australia’s environment groups ‒ i.e. real environment groups ‒ are united in our opposition to nuclear power.
Real environment groups celebrate the spectacular growth of renewables and the spectacular cost reductions whereas pro-nuclear lobby groups, including Lovering’s Breakthrough Institute and Heard’s Bright New World, are on a never-ending campaign against renewables. Global renewable energy capacity has doubled over the past decade and current renewable capacity of 2,006 gigawatts (GW) is 5.1 times greater than nuclear power capacity of 392 GW (including idle reactors in Japan). Actual electricity generation from renewables (23.5% of global generation) is more than double that from nuclear power (10.7%) and the gap is widening every day.
Lovering’s opinion piece in The Australian on Monday fails to note that her speaking trip is sponsored by the Minerals Council of Australia. Likewise, Heard has also been paid as a uranium industry consultant.
Lovering brings a suitcase full of alternative facts to Australia. The most egregious is that the nuclear industry is in the middle of some sort of renaissance. Even her own institute contradicts this, Continue reading →
May 31, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster, technology |
Leave a comment
Todays’ AUSTRALIAN touts a nuclear promotion by Jessical Lovering:
“Jessica Lovering is director of energy at The Breakthrough Institute, a US environmental and energy 
think tank. She is visiting Australia to discuss nuclear innovation with energy policy experts, parliamentarians and government agencies.”
Just let’s be clear on who Jessica Lovering represents, and who is paying for her visit.
Well, the visit is paid for by the Minerals Council of Australia, also sponsored by the breakthrough Institute.
The Breakthrough Institute is a pretend-environmental group that propagandises for new nuclear power It’s interesting that Jessica will be speaking in Sydney on May 30th, and in Adelaide on May 31st – coincidentally, just as the Parliamentary Committe is about to give its blessing to Australia signing up to join in developing new :”Generation IV” nuclear reactors
The Breakthrough Institute launched the Breakthrough Energy Coalition at the start of the COP21 climate talks in Paris, with collective wealth of three hundred and fifty billion dollars.
The Breakthrough Institute is a billionaire’s club of “new nuclear” proponents, (to name just a few):
- Bill Gates who owns Terra Power LLC, a nuclear design and engineering company
- Richard Branson, publicly touts nuclear energy and put his name on Pandora’s Promise as executive producer.
- Mukesh Ambani an investor in Terra Power
- Jeff Bezos investor in nuclear fusion
- Chris Hohn’s TCI hedge fund invested in J-Power, a Japanese utility company whose assets included nuclear power stations.
- Vinod Khosla loves nuclear power and is on record blaming environmentalists rather than nuclear energy’s obviously disastrous economics, for its failure.Chinese billionaire
- Jack Ma of Alibaba, involved in China’s investment in the UK’s planned Hinkley-C nuclear power plant.
- Ratan Tata investing in nuclear energy in India
Last time the Breakthrough Institute send a macho man to spin to Australia. Lately they’ve turned to using trendy young women – a case of handing over the poisoned chalice?
May 29, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Submission to: Inquiry: The Generation IV Nuclear Energy – Accession. by Noel Wauchope, 24 April 2017
First of all, I find it very strange that this agreement has been signed up to in advance, not by any elected representative of the Australian Parliament, but by Dr Adi Patterson CEO of the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, apparently pre-empting the results of this Inquiry!
I find it disturbing that this Inquiry is being held without any public information or discussion. Are we to assume that the decision to join this “Charter” is being taken without prior public knowledge?
It is a pretty momentous decision. According to the World Nuclear Association the 2005 Framework agreement “formally commits them (signatories) to participate in the development of one or more Generation IV systems selected by GIF for further R&D.”
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 currently prohibits the development of nuclear power in Australia. Nuclear power cannot be approved under either the EPBC Act or the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. These prohibitions are, as I understand it, supported by all major parties in Australia?
This would be an extraordinary step for Australia to take, especially in the light of the recent South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) pro-nuclear Royal Commission, which, while recommending South Australia for an international nuclear waste dump, nevertheless stated that
“The recent conclusion of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), which issued updated projections for fast reactor and innovative systems in January 2014, suggests the most advanced system will start a demonstration phase (which involves completing the detailed design of a prototype system and undertaking its licensing, construction and operation) in about 2021. The demonstration phase is expected to last at least 10 years and each system demonstrated will require funding of several billion US dollars. As a result, the earliest possible date for the commercial operation of fast reactor and other innovative reactor designs is 2031. This timeframe is subject to significant project, technical and funding risk. It extends by six years a similar assessment undertaken by GIF in 2002. This means that such designs could not realistically be ready for commercial deployment in South Australia or elsewhere before the late 2030s, and possibly later.”
This was hardly a ringing endorsement of Generation IV nuclear reactors.
The South Australian Citizens Jury, Community Consultations, numerous economists, and the S.A. Liberal Party all rejected that nuclear waste plan, as not economically viable. A huge amount of preparation was done by the NFCRC in investigating the phases of the nuclear Fuel Cycle (more accurately Chain) to arrive at their rather negative view of Generation IV nuclear reactors.
That makes it all the more extraordinary that the Australian government would be willing to sign up so quickly to ANSTO’s request that Australia put resources into these untested, and so far, non-existent nuclear technologies.
I hope that the Committee is aware of the present financial troubles of the giant nuclear corporations, such as AREVA, Toshiba, and Westinghouse Electric. Nuclear power is turning out to be a financial liability wherever it is not funded by the tax-payer, (as in China and Russia). (1)
The World Nuclear Association describes the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) as countries for whom nuclear energy is significant now or seen as vital in the future. Australia’s situation in no way fits these criteria.
Nuclear energy is not significant now in Australia, and even the NRCRC nuclear proponents do not see it as vital for Australia’s future. It is almost laughable, that right now, renewable energy systems are taking off in Australia – both as large solar and wind farms, and as a huge increase in small decentralised systems such as home and business solar panel installations.
That’s where Australia should be putting its resources of human energy, talent, and funding.
The claims made by the nuclear lobby, ANSTO and some politicians, notably Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop, about Generation Iv nuclear reactors, do not stand up to scrutiny:
Non proliferation “- Furthering Australia’s non-proliferation and nuclear safety objectives.” The well-known claim that a “conventional” nuclear bomb cannot be made from these new types of reactor, might be true, to a certain extent. However, IFRs and other plutonium-based nuclear power concepts fail the WMD proliferation test, i.e. they can too easily be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. The use of thorium as a nuclear fuel doesn’t solve the WMD proliferation problem. Irradiation of thorium (indirectly) produces uranium-233, a fissile material which can be used in nuclear weapons. These materials can be used to make a “dirty bomb” – irradiating a city or other target. They would require the same expensive security measures that apply with conventional nuclear reactors.
If the purpose in joining the GIF is to strengthen non-proliferation and safety – why is ANSTO the implementing agent not the Australia Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office?
Solving nuclear waste problem? Claims that these new nuclear reactors will solve the problem of nuclear wastes are turning out to be spurious. For example, Nuclear energy startup Transatomic Power has backed away from bold claims for its advanced reactor technology after an informal review by MIT professors highlighted serious errors in the company’s calculations. (2) Even at the best of times, the “new nuclear” lobby admits that their Gen IV reactors will produce highly toxic radioactive wastes, requiring security for up to 300 years.
The Integral Fast Reactor is called “integral” because it would process used reactor fuel on-site, separating plutonium (a weapons explosive) and other long-lived radioactive isotopes from the used fuel, to be fed back into the reactor. It essentially converts long-lived waste into shorter lived waste. This waste would still remain dangerous for a minimum of 200 years (provided it is not contaminated with high level waste products), so we are still left with a waste problem that spans generations. (3)
Climate change. The claim that new nuclear power will solve climate change is spurious. This ignores life-cycle CO2 emissions
Nuclear energy is not zero carbon.
Emissions from nuclear will increase significantly over the next few decades as high grade ore is depleted, and increasing amounts of fossil fuels are required to access, mine and mill low-grade ore.
To stay below the 2 degrees of global warming that climate scientists widely agree is necessary to avert catastrophic consequences for humans and physical systems, we need to significantly reduce our emissions by 2050, and to do this we need to start this decade. Nuclear is a slow technology:
The “Generation IV” demonstration plants projected for 2030-2040 will be too late, and there is no guarantee the pilots will be successful.
Nuclear Economics. For “a time when significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway” – this is a laughable falsehood. In reality, nuclear power economics are in a state of crisis, most notably in America, but it is a world-wide slowdown. (4)
The vagueness of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) agreement is a worry. Australia is to formally commit to participate in the development of one or more Generation IV systems selected by GIF for further R&D. Surely Australia is not going to sign up to this, without any detail on what kind of research, what kind of reactor, what amount of funding we would be committing to the GIF.
And all this without any public discussion!
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/11/toshiba-losses-uk-moorside-nuclear-plant-westinghouse
- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy- startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/
- https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4555
- http://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-industry-crisis-29735/
May 17, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, secrets and lies, spinbuster, technology |
2 Comments
Over the past year, the Anglo world has become interested in nuclear as a complement for wind and solar towards “deep decarbonization,” or a (nearly) 100% carbon-free supply of energy or possibly just electricity. Today, Craig Morris reviews a few papers by Americans and Australians and advises them to tackle the best European studies for 100% renewables head-on, not ignore them.
The first paper is by Stephen Brick and Samuel Thernstrom. Thernstrom has been calling nuclear “an essential part of the puzzle” since at least 2010. The paper is peer-reviewed; unfortunately, none of the reviewers noticed the oversights I found. Continue reading →
May 17, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Today, I am taking the unusual step of publishing an entire submission. That’s because it is so good. The nuclear lobby pulled a swifty on Australians, by having government and media very quietly do what is sure to be a “rubber stamp” job on Australia joining up to the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
They allowed a very short time for submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. The nuke lobby must have been in the know, as they put in 11, whereas there were only 3, (one mine) critical of the plan.
Fortunately the critical ones contain compelling information. So, here, in full, is the:
Submission from Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation .
Contacts:
• Jim Green (Friends of the Earth, Australia) jim.green@foe.org.au, 0417 318 368
• Dave Sweeney (Australian Conservation Foundation) dave.sweeney@acf.org.au, 0408 317 812
Contents
1. Introduction and Response to National Interest Analysis
2. Generation IV Reactor Concepts ‒ Introduction
3. Decades Away
4. Purported Benefits
5. French Government’s IRSN Report
6. US Government Accountability Office Report
7. The Slow Death of Fast Reactors
8. Integral Fast Reactors
9. Thorium 10. Small Modular Reactors 11. Fusion Scientist Debunks Fusion
- INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INTEREST ANALYSIS Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation welcome the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry and would welcome the opportunity to appear before a hearing of the Committee.
The Committee will likely receive submissions promoting the construction of Generation IV reactors in Australia and it is therefore worth noting comments by the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in its May 2016 Final Report: “[A]dvanced fast reactors and other innovative reactor designs are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future. The development of such a first-of-a-kind project in South Australia would have high commercial and technical risk. Although prototype and demonstration reactors are operating, there is no licensed, commercially proven design. Development to that point would require substantial capital investment. Moreover, electricity generated from such reactors has not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with current light water reactor designs.”1
Here we provide brief responses to a number of comments in the National Interest Analysis (NIA).2
The NIA asserts that participation in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) will further Australia’s non-proliferation and nuclear safety objectives. No evidence is supplied to justify the tenuous assertion. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further non-proliferation objectives, e.g. a ban on reprocessing Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials (AONM); a reversal of the decision to permit uranium sales to countries that have not signed or ratified the NPT; or refusing uranium sales to countries that refuse to sign or ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further safety objectives, e.g. revisiting the decision to sell uranium to Ukraine in light of the ongoing conflict in that country, refusing to supply uranium to nuclear weapon states that are not fulfilling their NPT obligations, insisting that uranium customer countries establish a strong, independent regulatory regime (as opposed to the inadequate regulation in a number of customer countries, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others).
Nuclear non-proliferation would also be far better realised by active Australian engagement in the current UN process around the development of a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Instead Australia has spurned this pivotally important initiative and is refusing to participate. If Australia is serious about its international standing, our representatives would be at the table in New York.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF will help Australia maintain its permanent position on the IAEA’s 35-member Board of Governors. ANSTO routinely makes such arguments ‒ in support of the construction of the OPAL reactor, in support of the development of nuclear power in Australia, and now in support of Australian participation in GIF. Australia has held a permanent position on the IAEA’s Board of Governors for decades and there is no reason to believe that participation or non-participation in GIF will change that situation.
The NIA asserts that accession to the Agreement and participation in GIF will have important economic benefits. No evidence is supplied to justify that tenuous assertion. There are no demonstrated economic benefits from participation in GIF ‒ however there are clear costs.
The NIA states that the “costs of participation in the System Arrangements will be borne by ANSTO from existing funds.” ANSTO should be required to provide a detailed account of past expenditure relating to this Agreement and anticipated future expenditure.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF “will improve the Australian Government’s awareness and understanding of nuclear energy developments throughout the region and around the world, and contribute to the ability of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to continue to provide timely and comprehensive advice on nuclear issues.” Those arguments are tenuous, especially given that little about GIF is secret.
The NIA states that “Generation IV designs will use fuel more efficiently, reduce waste production, be economically competitive, and meet stringent standards of safety and proliferation resistance.” Those false claims are rebuked in later sections of this submission.
The NIA states that the success of Australia’s bid for membership of GIF was based in part on ANSTO’s “world-class capabilities and expertise” in the “development of nuclear safety cases.” ANSTO should be asked to justify that assertion. ANSTO could also be asked whether, based on its “world-class” expertise in nuclear safety, whether it considers it is appropriate for Australia to sell uranium to countries with demonstrably inadequate nuclear regulatory regimes, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others.
The NIA asserts that “a significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway or under consideration by a number of countries, including several in the Asia Pacific region.” In fact:
- Globally, nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 20 years.
- For the foreseeable future, there is zero likelihood of a “significant” nuclear expansion of nuclear power and there will be an overall decline unless growth in China matches the decline elsewhere. Declines can be predicted with great confidence in North America, across all EU countries combined, in Japan, and in numerous other countries and regions ‒ and a very large majority of the world’s countries (about five out of six) are nuclear-free and plan to stay that way.
- No country in the Asia Pacific or South East Asia is seriously planning to introduce nuclear power. The only country that was seriously planning to introduce nuclear power in the region ‒ Vietnam ‒ abandoned those plans last year.
The NIA states that Australia’s participation in GIF falls within the existing functions of ANSTO under Section 5 of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties should assess whether Australia’s participation in GIF is consistent with legislation banning nuclear power in Australia (the EPBC and ARPANS Acts). 2.
2. GENERATION IV REACTOR CONCEPTS ‒ INTRODUCTION Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, reference, spinbuster, technology |
Leave a comment
With a nuclear waste dump in South Australia that accepts international shipments, the full range of the “nuclear industry” in the state would be complete, truly making it the “Defense State” that has become the state motto.[9]
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, Spirit of Eureka ,Talk by David Palmer at “SA The Nuclear State” forum 03 May 2017 “……..If citizens – the people – whether they are in the Fukushima region of Japan or in Adelaide, South Australia – have a right to speak out on the dangers of the nuclear industry, then who are the elites promoting the nuclear industry? If we look at prominent figures in government the institutional linkages become all too clear. Consider the example of Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia until 2014, a Rear Admiral retired from the Royal Australian Navy, current Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and Deputy Chairman of Seeley International, the largest air conditioning company in Australia that is known for energy-efficiency. Scarce led the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and was the primary author of the report that recommended the South Australian government accept a nuclear waste dump. All the links are there in Scarce’s connections and positions: military, university, corporate, and government.
Furthermore, the Royal Commission did not focus solely on a nuclear waste dump. It considered possible expansion of nuclear industries in the state that encompassed mining, enrichment, and power generation. The Royal Commission report states that “The activity under consideration is the further processing of minerals, and the processing and manufacturing of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances (but not for, or from, military uses) including conversion, enrichment, fabrication or reprocessing in South Australia.”[3]
But during the time this Royal Commission report was being prepared and finally delivered, Adelaide became the focal point for naval shipbuilding contracts, particularly submarines. Both Labor and Liberal politicians sought to outdo each other in pushing for submarines to be built in Adelaide. They will be diesel powered, but the majority of submarines internationally use nuclear power propulsion. Potential overseas contractors also use designs geared for nuclear power. There are those in Australian naval circles who would like to see these Australian subs with nuclear, not diesel, power. And where will these submarines be used, and with what international interests? We know the answer to that question, as recent events in the Western Pacific have confirmed. The USS Carl Vinson, the nuclear powered air craft carrier, was on exercises in the Indian Ocean in early April with Australia’s HMAS Ballarat, when it was ordered to the Korean peninsula this month in response to the North Korean threat to explode a nuclear bomb.[4] This latest development is just one example of the escalating naval tensions on our side of the Pacific. Crises like this will potentially increase pressure for Australia to build submarines – and possibly other naval vessels – that are nuclear powered.
What does the corporate profile of the “nuclear industry” look like? Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
South Australia, spinbuster, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
These women defy the illusion that you have to have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics or in nuclear engineering – that you must be a Ben Heard – to have a legitimate voice about nuclear power and the potential dangers of nuclear industry accidents. Our movement needs scientific experts, but all of us can gain basic knowledge and speak out
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: 
THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, Spirit of Eureka Talk by David Palmer at “SA The Nuclear State” forum 03 May 2017 There are other speakers and participants here today who have more expertise in the scientific and engineering details of this controversy than I do. My comments are aimed, instead, at those powerful elite stakeholders who are at the core of what we know as the military-industrial complex – here in South Australia, our country, but also globally, with its centre in the United States.
Is this issue of a nuclear waste dump advocated for South Australia just about jobs and economic prosperity, as Premier Wetherill claims? Or is it far broader? The words of Ben Heard, former executive director of pro-nuclear power lobby group Bright New World, sum it up well: “We must be a full service provider to the nuclear back-end.”[1] Adelaide’s Advertiser reported last month that “a new open letter [has been sent] to state MPs, 42 influential people demand[ing] the State Government commits to completing first-stage investigations of the proposed high-level repository.”[2] Many of these “influential people” signed a similar letter back in December demanding the same thing, through Ben Heard’s pro-nuclear Bright New World.
But just what is this “nuclear back-end” – the back end of what? Nuclear materials have a wide range of uses, including medical and commercial ones that are distinct from their main uses for power generation and weapons. The vast majority of government expenditures related to nuclear materials goes toward nuclear weapons and military uses (such as naval propulsion systems), and nuclear power. In the United States, virtually all nuclear-related industries and products in the energy and military-application areas are joint operations involving private companies working under government contracts and regulations. The scientific and engineering knowledge required for the nuclear industry means that universities and university-linked research centres play a major role in bringing these two institutions – private companies and government – together. In South Australia, Ben Heard (who is connected to University of Adelaide) is symbolic of this key link connecting networked institutions and elites. Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Hawker School Students Visit ANSTO Ten students aged 11 to 17 from Hawker School are travelling across the country, to explore some of Australia’s most significant science infrastructure at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in Sydney.
On Wednesday and Thursday next week, the students and two teachers from Hawker School will spend their days not in their science classrooms, but near Australia’s multi-purpose nuclear research reactor.
Their trip will start in the nearby Royal National Park, with Les Bursill, an elder of the Dharawal community, who will share with them the rich traditional heritage of the land surrounding ANSTO.
Les is the Elder in Residence at the University of Wollongong, and has worked closely with ANSTO to ensure that the many sites of indigenous importance around the Lucas Heights campus are protected.
The students will then head to the ANSTO Discovery Centre, which welcomes 15,000 visitors a year, to learn more about radiation and radioactivity through an interactive workshop.
The OPAL reactor will be the next stop, where students will see the reactor pool up-close, before they tour the wider ANSTO campus, seeing the advanced technology used and the low level and intermediate level waste stores.
On Thursday, engineering will be the subject of choice as the students find out more about all different types of engineering, and take part in hands-on activities as part of Discover Engineering Day.
“ANSTO is thrilled to be welcoming our young South Australian visitors next week,” said Discovery Centre Leader, Rod Dowler.
“Every week we have visits from students, from Kindergarten through to university students, but it is always an exciting time when we are welcoming out-of-state visitors.
“Bringing the kids out to Lucas Heights to see the facilities and to show them the work being done at ANSTO will let them know more about the front end of the nuclear cycle – the research, medicine and innovation that nuclear science enables.
“At ANSTO we produce nuclear medicines that are needed by approximately one in two Australians in their lifetime, for the diagnosis and treatment of cancers, and heart, lung, muscular, and skeletal conditions.
“Researchers also use nuclear research techniques to support research into improving human health, understanding our environment and supporting Australian industries.
“For example, nuclear research supports the agriculture industry through helping to understand the sustainability of Australia’s groundwater reservoirs, by determining their age and the ‘recharge rate’ of water, which helps farmers around the country.
“We’ll also talk to students about radiation, and how it is all around us in everyday household items like potting mix, kitty litter, bananas, granite benchtops and even bricks in houses – and, it also occurs in things we produce, like nuclear medicines and its by-products.
“We’ll be talking about all things nuclear from start to finish, so that the students get a really good understanding of all the steps, people, products and by-products generated by Australia’s nuclear industry.
“We are really looking forward to having the students from Hawker in Lucas Heights, and we can’t wait to show them around.”
May 3, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Dennis Matthews, 28 Apr 17 Recently, some organisations with impressive sounding names held a symposium at the Australian National University.
The symposium of engineers and scientists was on the nuclear fuel cycle comprised of “mining and fuel processing, nuclear power and waste storage”. The fact that this is a linear process rather than a cycle doesn’t seem to have bothered the participants. The nuclear spin cycle however is real.
The symposium appears to have regurgitated pro-nuclear submissions made to the SA Royal Commission on the nuclear industry and ended up generally agreeing, “that a social licence to operate will not be achieved quickly”. This is an understatement. It has been six decades since Australia got involved in the nuclear industry and sent uranium mined in South Australia and the Northern Territory to the UK for processing and for making nuclear weapons, which were then “tested” in South Australia.
The symposium ended up recommending, “that expertise in the humanities and social sciences be engaged to study the evolution and determining factors for public opinion on nuclear issues in Australia.” Hopefully, these experts will teach the scientists and engineers how to be objective and how to tell the difference between a cycle and spin.
April 28, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Despite the resounding defeat of the shonky South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission last year, a few zealous lobbyists continue to put across the incorrect story that expansion of the nuclear industry in that State is a viable option.
They organised a symposium.
Cambridge Dictionary describes a symposium as : an occasion at which people who have great knowledge of a particular subject meet in order to discuss a matter of interest
That’s interesting, as the communique from this symposium did not name the experts who were present. I am suspecting that their “great knowledge” was on how to spin pro nuclear propaganda.
The meeting was co-ordinated by the pro nuclear physicist Professor Ken Baldwin. He apparently still believes in the goal of the NFCRC. He had this to say on the NFCRC goals
A further step could be to immediately establish a nuclear regulatory framework, in parallel with community consultation. This would reduce the lead time for nuclear to perhaps ten years if there is public acceptance
The symposium sounded so important, held at the ANU, hosted by The Australian National University (ANU) Energy Change Institute in collaboration with Engineers Australia, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering.
It all sounds so awfully academic and gee-whiz important. Apart from Mr Baldwin, no other experts were named. Anyway, surprise surprise. They concluded that Nuclear options need to be in the energy mix. I’d just like to know – how many scientists actually were present? Who put up the arguments for nuclear? What were those arguments?
April 28, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
3 Comments
Turnbull fibbed about Snowy Hydro 2.0 https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/turnbull-fibbed-about-snowy-hydro-20,10235 Mark Hipgrave 26 April 2017, Far from being the solution to Australia’s energy crisis, bureaucrats have confirmed the upgrade to Snowy Hydro may never even go ahead, reports Mark Hipgrave.
RECENT TURNBULL GOVERNMENT announcements about renaming the 457 Visa system, toughening the citizenship test, and the one from Fiona Nash about decentralising Govt Departments, made me think about last month’s big announcement – the Snowy Hydro Scheme Expansion.
You will recall that, on March 16, the PM announced plans for a $2 billion expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme that could add up to 50% to its capacity.
In his media statement, Turnbull outlined the basics of the project — a plan to ‘supercharge the Snowy Hydro precinct’, with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), charged to
‘… examine several sites, which could support large scale pumped hydroelectric energy storage in the precinct. These sites would involve new tunnels and power stations, connecting existing storages.’
In a speech in front of the penstocks feeding the Tumut 3 Power Station, he sounded positively Churchillian puffing out his chest, malsplaining to us all that the new Snowy Hydro scheme was the
‘… result of the vision and the courage of the generation that won the Second World War … they defended our freedoms …. and they came home and built this …. these are big dreams in these mountains, real courage…’
(He ignored the reality that around two thirds of the workforce employed in the construction of the scheme were immigrant workers, originating from over 30 countries. Not the winners of WWII, they were mostly the losers — displaced persons from Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia and other parts of Eastern Europe. They came with little English and no knowledge at all of Australian values. The work was largely managed by U.S. engineering contractors and, while an engineering triumph, it was achieved with what we would now regard as a shocking safety record). Continue reading →
April 28, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
The global giants of nuclear power are in disarray. As Westinghouse Electric, Toshiba, 
AREVA struggle in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, a new breed of sophisticated nuclear campaigners, led by US billionaire Bill Gates, are spruiking “Small Modular Reactors”. Veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Noel Wauchope investigates the pro-nuclear push, the smart social media offensives and the latest government lobbying. http://www.michaelwest.com.au/ , 15 Apr 17
We don’t hear much about this, yet. It’s an international nuclear industry plan to develop new nuclear reactors, reactors which are still only in the design phase.
The Treaties Committee of the Australian Parliament is holding an inquiry into the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Australia already signed up for this in June 2016, without any public discussion. Now the plan is to extend Australia’s involvement and the Committee has called for submissions by April 28, 2017.
Most people would think the idea of expanding the nuclear industry in Australia was dead and gone, following last year’s debacle of the South Australian government’s attempts to get a nuclear waste import business set up in Australia. The latest plan however is different……..
In the current climate of financial crisis for AREVA, Westinghouse, Toshiba and so on, “new nuclear” companies such as Terrestrial Energy, Transatomic and NuScale now pitch their products as a radically different alternative to conventional nuclear reactors.
This new nuclear propaganda is certainly out there, but it is not yet prevalent in Australia. The nuclear lobby’s first step is to get government commitments in principle, getting Australia in step with USA and the other nations in the campaign. While the government is certainly well aware of the rejuvenated pro-nuclear campaign, the soft-sell to the Australian public is barely underway. It will come……..
The most important target however is the public, and particularly youth via social media……..
It is quite a small number of individuals who produce both the wordy, technical presentations for government, industry and mainstream media and the bright and snappy messages for the young and for non-technical environmentalists…….
In Australia, this nuclear PR is typified by the work of Ben Heard, who sends sophisticated submissions to government, tweets constantly, and who champions the environment via the nuclear front group Bright New World…….
Now targeting youth via new media the spin has taken on humanitarian and nature-loving elements. Although a collective of billionaires and big corporations are behind it, it promotes an alternative to big corporations. It is about saving the planet. It is about endless cheap and pollution-free energy for all, recycling nuclear wastes, combating climate change, promoting the beneficial uses of ionising radiation, freeing people from irrational fears and from anti-science.
The SMR lobby has been successful already in gaining the attention of government and media for technologies which do not yet even commercially exist. In today’s world of “alternative facts” this success is not surprising. It remains to be seen if “new nuclear” can win the public approval that it needs. http://www.michaelwest.com.au/reactivated-new-nuclear-push-ramps-up/
April 16, 2017
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
