China as market for agriculture, could be finished if nuclear waste dump goes ahead
Kristen Jelk, Your Say Last month I was in China promoting an Australian product that comes from SA which is pitched as a clean, green, environment. The full potential of the market in China for South Australian produce is immeasurable. From a Chinese consumers point of view, the environmental conditions where the product is sourced or grown, is pivotal to the choices made when purchasing.
Chinese consumers will pay top prices for products that are considered SAFE – produced where the source is known to be an unpolluted clean environment. Perception is everything, and if a consumer becomes aware that SA had developed a nuclear waste dump, then that perception of a safe environment will be shattered. It will not matter that the dump is in a desert, nor will it matter if the dump is considerable distance from prime agricultural land, nor will it matter if experts assure of safety standards.
The perception that would prevail is that SA will be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. If this is a discussion over commercial viability verses environmental risks long term, then I would argue that the real cost of the dump being located in SA is the loss in the perception that SA is a “clean, green” state. Questions would be raised over validity of the safety of the states produce.
Science does not dispel the pervading distrust of nuclear waste storage. Impassioned long standing anti-nuclear supporters cannot be placated and therefore ongoing discourse over the proposed dump will just shine a brighter light on the discussion world wide. The long term impact on the revenue of export sales will, without doubt be affected.
To risk the potential of long term growth in export sales due to a short term vision on job creation,( which is questionable ) is not good economics. SA has the potential to be a renewable energy ambassador with exciting projects already in development. We have to think globally, not locally if we are to sustain economic growth based on the real tangible asset that we have, which is our environment. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report
Blow to South Australian govt: BHP categorically rejects any role in nuclear waste importing
In another potential blow to the South Australian government, which had pinned the state’s economic future on the original expansion plan, Olympic Dam asset president Jacqui McGill categorically rejected siting a high-level international nuclear waste repository on any land covered by its indenture agreement.
We’re not a waste repository company, so that’s not in our business model and it’s not in our plans,” she said. BHP had no moral responsibility to manage waste
BHP: Fukushima set uranium industry back for years THE AUSTRALIAN JUNE 27, 2016 Michael Owen SA Bureau Chief Adelaide A key reason for BHP Billiton’s decision four years ago to indefinitely mothball a $30 billion plan to turn Olympic Dam into the world’s biggest uranium mine was the Fukushima nuclear plant explosion rather than cost concerns, it has been revealed. Continue reading
National Labor opposes nuclear waste importing: an obstacle to South Australia’s plan
Labor’s national policy against nuclear could create issues for SA’s waste dump proposal http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/alp-policy-could-create-issues-for-sa-nuclear-vision/7539166?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter By Leah Maclennan Labor may oppose a high-level nuclear waste dump, even if the South Australian Government decides to build one, a federal Labor MP says.
The State Labor Government is consulting on the proposal following the recommendations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
But Labor MP Nick Champion told a forum in Adelaide that he is against it, and would not want one in his electorate, which covers the northern suburbs and the Barossa Valley.
“I think the transport of it. I think the actual construction of it, the fact that nobody in the world has done it,” Mr Champion said. “Canada hasn’t done it. I think the Fins have only just established one, I think there is a lot more thinking that would have to go into it before we embarked on such a route.”
Mr Champion also raised the issue of the Labor Party’s policies, saying it has a national position in opposition to a high-level nuclear waste dump.
“There’d be some interesting debates at the national conference as there has been for the last three decades on nuclear issues,” he said
“But at the moment our platform opposes a high-level nuclear waste dump and so I suspect that’s the way the policy will be.”
Liberal senator Simon Birmingham told the forum it was the strongest opposition he has heard from a Labor MP.
“I’ve heard Bill Shorten and Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese express reservations about a nuclear waste dump before but I think Nick has put the party platform and position more clearly today than I’ve actually heard from a lot of others,” he said.
“For South Australians who think there is a good opportunity for our economy here, and [Premier] Jay Weatherill appears to be one of them, that’s a concerning proposition that you’ve put that it would seem to be very hard to get cooperation from a federal Labor government if SA is to go down this pathway.”
The federal Liberal Government has said it would work cooperatively with the South Australian Government if it decides to go ahead with the plan.
Taxpayers $100,000,000 to be spent up front BEFORE any decision on South Australia nuclear waste importing
Valdis Dunis Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia 24 June 16
Last night on Adelaide ABC TV News, The Royal Commission’s Jacob Engineering Manager Tim Johnson was interviewed after his submission to SA Parliament yesterday. He stated for the government to be certain that a waste dump would be feasible technically and financially would – like any large technical engineering program – require detailed analysis, and given the complexity Jacob’s estimate is about A$100M that the State Government would have to spent upfront BEFORE we could confirm a yes/no to make sure it will work and make money for us.
Should we spend $100M on more nuclear analysis, or spend the money instead on renewables and other services in our state?
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/…/2016/02/JOHNSON-Tim-489-496.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sa/
David Noonan’s Nuclear waste security brief, in brief
Nuclear waste security brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner, June 16
“Proposed International nuclear waste storage exposes Australia to risks of terrorism”
An International nuclear waste storage agenda exposes Australia to a range of potential profound adverse impacts through nuclear insecurity as a target for terrorism.
Claims by the Nuclear Commission Findings Report (Feb 2016, p.16-20) that SA “offers a safe long term capability” for the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste are contradicted by the fact that Australia will be exposed to significant and developing threats in terrorism over decades of proposed Nuclear port and above-ground waste storage operations.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities are concerned a determined terrorist group could be able to pierce nuclear waste transport and storage casks in use around the world and states that transport of nuclear materials should be limited as much as practical, with safe on-site storage facilities developed instead.
The Nuclear Commission’s nuclear waste transport and storage plans face fast emerging and unexpected nuclear security threats as lethal technology gets ever more destructive. Rocket propelled grenades, demolition charges and innovative available technology like the use of small drones by non-state actors are of increasing concern.
Attacks could seriously compromise operations of a nuclear port or an above-ground nuclear waste storage facility and the extent of impacts could conceivably require the site to be abandoned.
Why a referendum is needed on South Australian govt’s nuclear waste import plan
john jasson, Your Say 17 June 16 Chapter 6 page 122 [Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Recommendations] states:
“Because of these shifts, a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent: A vote for or against a proposal one day may not result in the same level of social consent one month later. ”
The two paragraphs that precede this unsubstantiated opinion as declared by the commission are in my view irrelevant because they relate to changes in public consent for matters of technological change that are easily reversible and have risk profiles that are minimal by comparison to a nuclear storage or transportation accident.
For this reason I have no trust in this process as I believe this to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the people of SA having a true say in this matter. A referendum is the only acceptable way to achieve public consent on a matter that has such significant commercial, safety and social implications for the public of SA. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report
Senator Nick Xenophon not keen on nuclear waste importing
Xenophon “can’t see benefits” of nuke dump, InDaily, Tom Richardson, 17 June 16 Influential senator Nick Xenophon has come down against the establishment of an international nuclear repository in South Australia, arguing “I can’t see the benefits are there that outweigh the risks”.
It comes as the state’s chamber of commerce, Business SA, nailed its own colours firmly to the mast, with chief Nigel McBride saying the organisation was now “advocating actively and positively for a high-level waste repository here in SA”.
InDaily revealed in March that McBride would be joining a business delegation organised by the 
Committee for Adelaide to tour nuclear sites in Europe, but at the time he insisted he was there to observe and learn, not to advocate…… with a public information campaign gearing up in the wake of the Scarce Royal Commission’s bullish final report, McBride says he is now prepared to take a lead in pushing for the repository to become a reality.
He said “thought leaders” in the community, rather than politicians, should step up to play a prominent role in the debate.
“We’re absolute advocates,” he said of Business SA…….
Business SA is overtly advocating for a high-level nuclear waste facility in SA, subject to an educational process that will get social consent.”
But the influential lobby group’s enthusiasm was not reciprocated by Xenophon at an election forum, co-hosted last night by a range of interest groups including the Wilderness Society and Conservation SA in the marginal electorate of Hindmarsh.
In a packed Glenelg Football clubroom, Karina Lester from the Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation pressed Xenophon on where his fledgling party stood on high-level nuclear waste imports.
“Would your party listen to us and support the overwhelming majority of traditional owners who continue to speak out against establishing an international nuclear waste dump?” Lester asked.
Xenophon said: “The short answer is yes, I don’t support importation of high-level waste.”
He has previously endorsed a referendum on the issue, explaining last night that “it seems to me you might get a consensus between the two major parties here in SA and it might be seen as a a done deal [so] it’s important to get the consent of the community”.
However, he added, “if a referendum were held tomorrow I can’t see myself supporting it”.
“I can’t see the benefits are there that outweigh the risks,” he said.
The debate is set to dominate the state political scene in the latter half of the year, with two Citizens’ Juries headlining a broader community consultation………http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/06/17/xenophon-cant-see-benefits-of-nuke-dump/
Why South Australians should say NO to the nuclear waste importing plan
Penny Kleemann 08 Jun 2016 To Jay and the state Labor Party: As I type, I’m looking at a photo of Mike Rann celebrating with the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta when they defeated the Howard nuclear dump proposal. Do the words “Judas” and “betrayal” mean anything to you?
Do you really think South Australians are so stupid? This state dump proposal is so full of lies and so obviously about greed, money before the planet, and the rich getting richer. The bias of the Royal Commission is gob-smacking. Let’s start with Kevin Scarce:
He appointed three nuclear advocates to the Committee and only one person who was opposed. Wow – unbiased. Sounds like the work of a nuclear lobby group to me.
We are leading the country in renewables. Why touch poison when we can be clean, green?
The supposed financial benefits are based on very shakey modeling, and if it all goes wrong, it will bring the opposite of financial windfall and could bankrupt the state.
And, the state Labor government embezzled 9.1 million plus of OUR public money on a Royal Commission when they could have just asked The Australia Institute to do it. For that money we could be well on the way to building our solar thermal plant at Port Augusta. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report
Greens propose a more rational way to deal with Lucas Heights’ returning nuclear wastes
“The Greens policy delivers a way forward by redirecting existing funding of $30 million from the current process to a new deliberative public inquiry focused on transparency and evidence to come up with the best possible solutions,” South Australian Greens senator Robert Simms said.
Federal election 2016: Greens would put nuke dump on hold JARED OWENS The Australian,June 10, 2016 The Greens are pushing to stockpile radioactive waste in suburban Sydney, pending an independent inquiry that would expressly exclude evidence from anyone who might profit from a dedicated nuclear dump.
The party’s nuclear policy would cancel the process led by Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg that has identified farmland at Barndioota, 400km north of Adelaide, as a potential nuclear waste site, despite objections raised by some traditional owners.
Under the policy, exports of Australian nuclear medicine to overseas patients would be curbed and research would be funded to find alternatives to radiotherapy.
The proposed independent inquiry would be charged with recommending a long-term solution to storing nuclear waste — typically, used medical equipment and spent fuel rods from Sydney’s Lucas Heights reactor — without imposing a dump site on reluctant communities. Continue reading
Australians must stand up against nuclear waste dumping
Bo
boratkazakh@facebook.com 10 June 16 Hawker gets announced as a place to dump, probably to ‘soften’ up public reaction when other LOCATIONS are selected, as Hawker is seen by many as the ‘Gateway’ to the relatively pristine Flinders Ranges.
For all ‘Australians,’ who think they have a say in this matter, consider the obvious:
FOREIGN INTERESTS have:
1) Chosen to mine uranium
2) Enriched it to use, while benefiting profiteers in the nuclear arms proliferation
3) Possibly benefiting their industrial economies, but
4) CREATED THE TOXIC WASTE
5) Now seek a cheap solution to dump it here.
Providing this cheap solution will lead to proliferation of an already obsolete industry to generate electricity.
The reality is most plants of anything usually are not reliably run for more than 50-60 years, even systems of government barely last centuries, this toxic crap will be around for many thousands of years!
How many Fukushimas & Chernobyls do we need to realise nuclear fission is not a ‘clean technology,’ nor is it an overall an atmospheric ‘CO2 friendly’ one as they claim to be.
Now, the places that have used nuclear will eventually become ‘Nuclear Free’ by dumping their decommissioned nuclear plants & waste here, spoiling our ‘Nuclear Free,’ status. Decommissioning nuclear is Govt policy in many countries that are genuine world leaders in social development, for everybody. Like the unbearable unmonitored pollution Government have imposed through & over Sold-Out-Salisbury, those adversely affected have NO say, & the amount of waste destined to be dumped here once allowed, will be beyond belief.
It is a ‘no-brainer’ to me, but from Sold-Out-Salisbury, the ‘true’ Australian Leadershit shows itself yet again. The true ‘Australians’ have realised this the day ‘foreign interests’ colonised the place.
Another thought, had they burnt coal to power their countries, the disgusting reality would have become so overbearingly obvious that the CO2icide would have HAD to been addressed decades sooner.
When will people wake up to the bullshit & demand better? Yes, I am still stupid enough to think we have a choice, but we do, if more bother to stick up for themselves…
Some even more disturbing numbers on folly of South Australia nuclear waste import plan
Kim Mavromatis 10 June 16 MORE NUMBERS – 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste in 69,000 high level radioactive waste canisters equates to a permanent underground nuclear waste dump size of around 112 square kms or 5,500 Adelaide ovals, 400 metres underground – and that’s not taking into consideration the 470,000 m3 of low and intermediate level nuclear waste.
You can’t seriously tell me they will be able to build one nuclear waste dump that big?? in ground where there is no seismic activity in SA. Say yes to one and we will have many – say yes to one and we will end up with a toxic white elephant that will do us in or an economic white elephant that will do us in.
South Australia’s proposed nuclear waste import dump would be massively larger than Finland’s
Kim Mavromatis, 10 June 16 THE NUMBERS TELL A STORY
At the Royal Commission NFC event at the Hawke Centre in Adelaide (Wed June 1), Kevin Scarce made reference to Finland’s permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste dump, currently being built at Onkalo, which will have a capacity of 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes. Onkalo is featured in the must see doco “Into Eternity”(https://vimeo.com/111398583). The Royal Commission NFC final report specifies a capacity of 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste for the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA and Kevin Scarce highlighted this figure at the Hawke Centre Nuclear event.
Comparing the Nuclear Royal Commission numbers with Onkalo, it’s clear that the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA will be of mammoth proportions.
Onkalo (Finland), permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste,
• or 2,500 to 5,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
Proposed SA Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 138,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste or 69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
• Capacity 390,000 m3 intermediate nuclear waste.
• Capacity 81,000 m3 low level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 72,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 175,000 m3 Intermediate nuclear waste.
Just for high level nuclear waste alone, it will require a waste dump 14 to 28 times the size of Onkalo (69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters). And for decades, half of the high level nuclear waste will be stored above ground in a temporary facility. Imagine the risk of nuclear holocaust with all that high level nuclear waste in the one location?
And the preferred site for the proposed Federal govnt’s low and intermediate level nuclear waste dump, in the Flinders Ranges, is in an area where there is regular earthquake activity.
How smart are these people?????
I suspect if the state govnt say yes to one Nuclear Waste Dump (low, intermediate, high), the floodgates will open and there won’t just be one Nuclear Waste Dump site in South Australia, there will be many (50, 100 ????). And saying yes in SA will also open the floodgates to the rest of Australia. And I question whether they’ll stop at 138,000 tonnes (69,000 canisters) of high level nuclear waste????? If the state govnt takes us down this path and we become the world’s nuclear waste dump, there is no turning back
South Australia’s Labor and Liberal leaders for nuclear jaunt together to Finland
Weatherill, Marshall to make bipartisan trip to permanent nuke waste dump in Finland June 9, 2016 , Daniel Wills and Luke Griffiths,The Advertiser
PREMIER Jay Weatherill and Opposition Leader Steven Marshall will make a bipartisan trip to Finland in August and visit the world’s first long-term nuclear waste storage facility……
The bipartisan delegation to Finland will also include members of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency Advisory Board, which is overseeing statewide consultation on the proposal as the State Government considers whether to proceed.
It will visit the Onkalo nuclear waste facility in northern Finland, where the country plans to bury its own spent fuel in a labyrinth of tunnels 520m under the ground for permanent storage. Onkalo is expected to accept fuel for 100 years before being sealed for eternity. The facility is currently under construction is expected to become operational within a decade.
Mr Weatherill said it was critical to see first-hand the kind of facility SA could build.
“The research and evidence shows SA can safely deepen its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle,” he said. “I want to see first-hand what this might look like and see what lessons Finland can share with us, should this be something South Australians want to consider.”
“To make an informed decision later this year, it’s important that I understand the concept of deep geological disposal. This bipartisan visit to the Onkalo site will allow us to learn valuable lessons from the Finnish experience, which we will share with the SA community.”
Mr Marshall said it’s important there is a bipartisan investigation of the opportunity and co-operation during the community consultation process.
Also on the panel was Greg Ward, chief of staff to the Nuclear Royal Commission…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/weatherill-marshall-to-make-bipartisan-trip-to-permanent-nuke-waste-dump-in-finland/news-story/8a1be359682fb154b4fdccd48cc36dca
Greens move to prevent vested interests profiting from Federal nuclear waste dump
Federal election 2016: Greens would put nuke dump on hold, THE AUSTRALIAN, JUNE 10, 2016 Jared Owens The Greens are pushing to stockpile radioactive waste in suburban Sydney, pending an independent inquiry that would expressly exclude evidence from anyone who might profit from a dedicated nuclear dump.
The party’s nuclear policy would cancel the process led by Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg that has identified farmland at Barndioota, 400km north of Adelaide, as a potential nuclear waste site, despite objections raised by some traditional owners.
Under the policy, exports of Australian nuclear medicine to overseas patients would be curbed and research would be funded to find alternatives to radiotherapy.
The proposed independent inquiry would be charged with recommending a long-term solution to storing nuclear waste — typically, used medical equipment and spent fuel rods from Sydney’s Lucas Heights reactor — without imposing a dump site on reluctant communities.
In the meantime, intermediate-level nuclear waste would continue to be warehoused at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney’s south.
The inquiry would hear from community groups and experts in engineering, social science, environmental science, community consultation, radiation and medicine, the policy says.
However, witnesses deemed to have a “conflict of interest” — that is, those who might profit from the storage of nuclear waste — would be excluded from the process.
“The Greens policy delivers a way forward by redirecting existing funding of $30 million from the current process to a new deliberative public inquiry focused on transparency and evidence to come up with the best possible solutions,” South Australian Greens senator Robert Simms said.
The policy adds to the growing list of demands that Bill Shorten would face in exchange for the minor party’s support in the event of a hung parliament……..
The Greens’ proposed inquiry would run alongside a separate royal commission into British nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-greens-would-put-nuke-dump-on-hold/news-story/42fabc8f9172fe65f1f282322fe60ade
South Australia’s nuclear waste dump money mirage
Real juries hear both the Prosecution and Defence cases in open court. What I fear is that my fellow citizens selected for citizen’s jury duty will get to read and hear only what the State Government wants them to read and hear, so that they will give Premier Weatherill the “social licence” he wants in order to proceed with the dump.
South Australians do not need to mortgage their descendants’ future by building a high level nuclear dump in order to make ends meet. The alleged riches that the dump has been claimed to bring are a mirage, but the long-term risks are not.
How a high-level nuclear waste dump could lose money http://indaily.com.au/business/analysis/2016/06/07/how-a-high-level-nuclear-waste-dump-could-lose-money/ June 7 2016 The economic case for a high level nuclear waste facility in South Australia is far from convincing, writes Richard Blandy.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission delivered its report early in May. I submitted my InDaily article on the Royal Commission’s tentative findings to the inquiry for its consideration. I received no acknowledgement, but I know that the article was discussed within the royal commission’s processes. It does not appear to have had any substantive effect on the report.
Having read the relevant sections of the report, I continue to believe that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive used fuel from overseas nuclear reactors (sp-called “high level waste”) which, in the royal commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
The only reason why most South Australians would give a high level nuclear waste dump even a second’s thought is because it is being sold to them as a financial bonanza – a no-risk economic lifeline to a state down on its luck. Something for nothing.
In the summary of its report, the royal commission says that a high level waste dump “could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the project (or $51 billion discounted at 4 per cent)”. Note that the report says “could”, not “would”.
But, in Appendix J, the report says that “applying a commercial pre-tax discount rate of 10 per cent the net present value of profits to the State would amount to $11.5 billion”. This is a big reduction from the headline number in the summary of $100 billion. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 