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/
COVID Infects World Nuclear Plants
https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/05/covid–infects-world-nuclear-plants.html
Read the Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill
2020.
2020 Winter Sittings of House of Representatives Parliament 12th – 14th May 2020 Canberra.
due to the COVID-19 crisis, hearings have been delayed and the reporting date has been pushed back.
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.