Disclaimer
http://www.antinuclear.net does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information’s, content contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website.
3 Comments »
Leave a Reply
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Nuclear Power in Australia | FYI
of the week
The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power onto Australia
EVENTS
27 February – Wayville, Adelaide Nuclear Waste in South Australia ‒ What do we know?
more at Action Australia
Victorian Government INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITIONThe submission closing date is Friday 28 February 2020. more – https://antinuclear.net/2019/11/07/victorian-government-inquiry-into-nuclear-prohibition/
Climate Action (Nuclear has no role)- theme for February 2020
Germany’s Climate Action Plan: step-by-step to a liveable future. Nuclear power is of course completely excluded
September 8 – Adelaide – Symposium on South Australia’s nuclear history:
Link for registration: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/south-australias-nuclear-past-present-and-future-tickets-48944656786?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/308523099705836
also:
Black Mist Burnt Country at National Museum in Canberra 24 August – 18 November
http://www.blackmistcountry.com.au
http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/black-mist-burnt-country
Hi,
on this website you summarize my submission to the federal inquiry as included below. I don’t think your summary is a correct reflection of my text and I refer your readers to the original document, which is available on the inquiry website. For example, I clearly make the point in my submission that there is currently no business case for nuclear power in Australia. Furthermore I do not say there or think that Fukushima has resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Neither do I make the point that Australia should have nuclear power, because we export uranium or because other nations have it.
In general I find your categorization into pro and anti unhelpful. I don’t see my submission in either camp.
Regards, Heiko Timmers
—————–
“Timmers, Heiko (63) Says Australia should have nuclear power because it exports uranium, because other nations have it, because it is low carbon, and with it, Australia can help against nuclear weapons proliferation – and because Australia needs to be ready for Generation IV reactors.
Says Australia should have the full nuclear fuel cycle. Present debate is too “emotional”. Says Fukushima resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Sees nuclear power as making Australia more important internationally.
Recommends developing renewable energy. Recommends setting up a nuclear waste import industry. Recommends “we intensify our participation in the Generation IV International Forum ……reinvigoratie university training and research in nuclear engineering. …Our active participation in the global nuclear fuel cycle with uranium exports and spent fuel storage services, thus taking ethical and environmental responsibility for the planet and helping to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, may benefit our international standing. “
Enthuses about the future of molten salt reactors.”
—————–
Thank you, Mr Timmers, for your comment. I acknowledge that you did not say that Fukushima resulted in greater safety measures, (though I am surprised that you don’t think that)
While you make the point that nuclear power is not currently feasible – the whole theme of your submission is that Australia should be ready for later development of nuclear power. You talk about not “disengaging with nuclear power.” But Australia IS already disengaged,
What you really want – is Australia to ENGAGE with nuclear power, e.g by overturning its laws against nuclear activities.
You just word it carefully, without spelling it out.