Australian researchers make clear gains in solar glass technology — RenewEconomy
Researchers from Monash and CSIRO find way to boost the energy efficiency and longevity of solar glass, while also allowing more natural light to pass through it. The post Australian researchers make clear gains in solar glass technology appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australian researchers make clear gains in solar glass technology — RenewEconomy
More wind farm project delays put dent into contractor’s revenue hopes — RenewEconomy
Contracting firm downgrades revenue forecasts for second time in two months after yet more delays at two wind farm projects. The post More wind farm project delays put dent into contractor’s revenue hopes appeared first on RenewEconomy.
More wind farm project delays put dent into contractor’s revenue hopes — RenewEconomy
Wind power meets and beats Denmark’s total electricity demand – two days in a row — RenewEconomy
Windy conditions in northern Europe provided more than 100% of Denmark’s electricity consumption for two days in a row in May. The post Wind power meets and beats Denmark’s total electricity demand – two days in a row appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Wind power meets and beats Denmark’s total electricity demand – two days in a row — RenewEconomy
June 3 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “The World May Be Careening Toward A 1970s-Style Energy Crisis – Or Worse” • The world is grappling with energy price spikes on everything from gasoline and natural gas to coal. Some experts fear this may just be the beginning of a situation that may rival or even exceed the oil crises of […]
June 3 Energy News — geoharvey
Joe Biden’s huge move against Russia: ‘This is how nuclear war begins’,
Yahoo News Australia and agencies, Thu, 2 June 2022
The US overnight has unveiled a new US$700 million package ($975 million) of sophisticated weapons for Ukraine in an urgent effort to prevent Russia from seizing the final swaths of land in the Donbas region.
But the most advanced rocket systems will take at least three weeks to reach the battlefront, raising questions of whether they will arrive in time to stop Russia’s slow but steady gains as the war inches closer to global catastrophe.
The Biden administration’s decision to send four medium-range rocket systems came after weeks of debate over whether the precision-guided weapons would provoke a strong military reaction from Russian President Vladimir Putin. It suggests the US believes it has zeroed in on what weapons deliveries are worth the risk…….
“The Ukrainians have given us assurances that they will not use these systems against targets on Russian territory,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday (local time).
“There is a strong trust bond between Ukraine and the United States.”
Nuclear war beings ‘one step at a time’
But not everyone has such faith in the latest decision by the US.
“The Ukrainians have given us assurances that they will not use these systems against targets on Russian territory,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday (local time).
“There is a strong trust bond between Ukraine and the United States.”
“This is a textbook example of how a nuclear war begins. One step at a time,” tweeted popular author Jim Rickards on Wednesday.
The Kremlin is also making threatening noises about the move. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday the US is “deliberately and diligently pouring fuel on the fire.” He added that Russia doesn’t trust
Kyiv’s assurances that the multiple rocket launch systems supplied by the US will not be used to attack.
“In order to trust (someone), you need to have experience with situations when such promises were kept. Regretfully, there is no such experience whatsoever,” Peskov said.,……………….
The Pentagon would not say how many rockets it will provide to Ukraine, only that it is sending four of the truck-mounted HIMARS systems. The trucks each carry a container with six precision-guided rockets, which can travel about 70 kilometres……………… https://au.news.yahoo.com/joe-bidens-huge-move-against-russia-nuclear-war-223931012.html
Documentary – Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes
The trailer for Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes documents the coverup of one of the worst nuclear disasters in historyhttps://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trailer-chernobyl-lost-tapes-documents-182752165.html
Savannah Olson
Sat, June 4, 2022 Back in 2019, the miniseries Chernobyl aired on HBO, unflinchingly chronicling the horrors of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster through actors and the big budget of cable television. Now, unseen footage taken at the time of the incident combined with in-person interviews has been put together in the trailer for HBO’s newest documentary Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes
The unnerving documentary’s synopsis reads: “Thirty-six years after the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded in Soviet Ukraine, newly uncovered archival footage and recorded interviews with those who were present paint an emotional and gripping portrait of the extent and gravity of the disaster and the lengths to which the Soviet government went to cover up the incident, including the soldiers sent in to ‘liquidate’ the damage. Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes is the full, unvarnished true story of what happened in one of the least understood tragedies of the twentieth century.”
Small nuclear reactors produce ’35x more waste’ than big plants
Mini nuclear reactors that are supposed to usher in an era of cheaper and
safer nuclear power may generate up to 35 times more waste to produce the
same amount of power as a regular plant, according to a study.
A team of researchers at Stanford University and the University of British Columbia
came to this conclusion after studying a design from each of three small
modular reactor (SMR) manufacturers: NuScale Power, Toshiba, and
Terrestrial Energy.
The study, published this week, found that not only did
those particular SMR approaches generate five times the spent nuclear fuel
(SNF), 30 times the long-lived equivalent waste, and 35 times the low and
intermediate-level waste (LILW), their waste is also more reactive,
therefore more dangerous and consequently harder to dispose of.
The Register 2nd June 2022
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/02/nuclear_reactors_waste/
Nuclear waste from small modular reactors
Lindsay M. Krall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6962-7608 Lindsay.Krall@skb.se, Allison M. Macfarlane https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8359-9324, and Rodney C. Ewing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9472-4031Authors Info & Affiliations
May 31, 2022 Small modular reactors (SMRs), proposed as the future of nuclear energy, have purported cost and safety advantages over existing gigawatt-scale light water reactors (LWRs). However, few studies have assessed the implications of SMRs for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. Although the analysis focuses on only three of dozens of proposed SMR designs, the intrinsically higher neutron leakage associated with SMRs suggests that most designs are inferior to LWRs with respect to the generation, management, and final disposal of key radionuclides in nuclear waste.
Abstract
Small modular reactors (SMRs; i.e., nuclear reactors that produce <300 MWelec each) have garnered attention because of claims of inherent safety features and reduced cost. However, remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of their nuclear waste streams. Here, we compare three distinct SMR designs to an 1,100-MWelec pressurized water reactor in terms of the energy-equivalent volume, (radio-)chemistry, decay heat, and fissile isotope composition of (notional) high-, intermediate-, and low-level waste streams. Results reveal that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR designs will increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30. The excess waste volume is attributed to the use of neutron reflectors and/or of chemically reactive fuels and coolants in SMR designs. That said, volume is not the most important evaluation metric; rather, geologic repository performance is driven by the decay heat power and the (radio-)chemistry of spent nuclear fuel, for which SMRs provide no benefit.
SMRs will not reduce the generation of geochemically mobile 129I, 99Tc, and 79Se fission products, which are important dose contributors for most repository designs. In addition, SMR spent fuel will contain relatively high concentrations of fissile nuclides, which will demand novel approaches to evaluating criticality during storage and disposal. Since waste stream properties are influenced by neutron leakage, a basic physical process that is enhanced in small reactor cores, SMRs will exacerbate the challenges of nuclear waste management and disposal.
In recent years, the number of vendors promoting small modular reactor (SMR) designs, each having an electric power capacity <300 MWelec, has multiplied dramatically (1, 2). Most recently constructed reactors have electric power capacities >1,000 MWelec and utilize water as a coolant. Approximately 30 of the 70 SMR designs listed in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Advanced Reactors Information System are considered “advanced” reactors, which call for seldom-used, nonwater coolants (e.g., helium, liquid metal, or molten salt) (3). Developers promise that these technologies will reduce the financial, safety, security, and waste burdens associated with larger nuclear power plants that operate at the gigawatt scale (3). Here, we make a detailed assessment of the impact of SMRs on the management and disposal of nuclear waste relative to that generated by larger commercial reactors of traditional design.
Nuclear technology developers and advocates often employ simple metrics, such as mass or total radiotoxicity, to suggest that advanced reactors will generate “less” spent nuclear fuel (SNF) or high-level waste (HLW) than a gigawatt-scale pressurized water reactor (PWR), the prevalent type of commercial reactor today. For instance, Wigeland et al. (4) suggest that advanced reactors will reduce the mass and long-lived radioactivity of HLW by 94 and ∼80%, respectively. These bulk metrics, however, offer little insight into the resources that will be required to store, package, and dispose of HLW (5). Rather, the safety and the cost of managing a nuclear waste stream depend on its fissile, radiological, physical, and chemical properties (6). Reactor type, size, and fuel cycle each influence the properties of a nuclear waste stream, which in addition to HLW, can be in the form of low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) (6–8). Although the costs and time line for SMR deployment are discussed in many reports, the impact that these fuel cycles will have on nuclear waste management and disposal is generally neglected (9–11).
Here, we estimate the amount and characterize the nature of SNF and LILW for three distinct SMR designs. From the specifications given in the NuScale integral pressurized water reactor (iPWR) certification application, we analyze basic principles of reactor physics relevant to estimating the volumes and composition of iPWR waste and then, apply a similar methodology to a back-end analysis of sodium- and molten salt–cooled SMRs. Through this bottom-up framework, we find that, compared with existing PWRs, SMRs will increase the volume and complexity of LILW and SNF. This increase of volume and chemical complexity will be an additional burden on waste storage, packaging, and geologic disposal. Also, SMRs offer no apparent benefit in the development of a safety case for a well-functioning geological repository.
1. SMR Neutronics and Design………………
2. Framework for Waste Comparison………….
3. SMR Waste Streams: Volumes and Characteristics………….
…………..
3.3.2. Corroded vessels from molten salt reactors.
Molten salt reactor vessel lifetimes will be limited by the corrosive, high-temperature, and radioactive in-core environment (23, 24). In particular, the chromium content of 316-type stainless steel that constitutes a PWR pressure vessel is susceptible to corrosion in halide salts (25). Nevertheless, some developers, such as ThorCon, plan to adopt this stainless steel rather than to qualify a more corrosion-resistant material for the reactor vessel (25).
Terrestrial Energy may construct their 400-MWth IMSR vessel from Hastelloy N, a nickel-based alloy that has not been code certified for commercial nuclear applications by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (26, 27). Since this nickel-based alloy suffers from helium embrittlement (27), Terrestrial Energy envisions a 7-y lifetime for their reactor vessel (28). Molten salt reactor vessels will become contaminated by salt-insoluble fission products (28) and will also become neutron-activated through exposure to a thermal neutron flux greater than 1012 neutrons/cm2-s (29). Thus, it is unlikely that a commercially viable decontamination process will enable the recycling of their alloy constituents. Terrestrial Energy’s 400-MWth SMR might generate as much as 1.0 m3/GWth-y of steel or nickel alloy in need of management and disposal as long-lived LILW (Fig. 1, Table 1, and SI Appendix, Fig. S3 and section 2) [on original]…………
4. Management and Disposal of SMR Waste
The excess volume of SMR wastes will bear chemical and physical differences from PWR waste that will impact their management and final disposal. …………………….
5. Conclusions
This analysis of three distinct SMR designs shows that, relative to a gigawatt-scale PWR, these reactors will increase the energy-equivalent volumes of SNF, long-lived LILW, and short-lived LILW by factors of up to 5.5, 30, and 35, respectively. These findings stand in contrast to the waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies. More importantly, SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio-)chemical differences from those of existing reactors. Molten salt– and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive. Relatively high concentrations of 239Pu and 235U in low–burnup SMR SNF will render recriticality a significant risk for these chemically unstable waste streams.
SMR waste streams that are susceptible to exothermic chemical reactions or nuclear criticality when in contact with water or other repository materials are unsuitable for direct geologic disposal. Hence, the large volumes of reactive SMR waste will need to be treated, conditioned, and appropriately packaged prior to geological disposal. These processes will introduce significant costs—and likely, radiation exposure and fissile material proliferation pathways—to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and entail no apparent benefit for long-term safety.
Although we have analyzed only three of the dozens of proposed SMR designs, these findings are driven by the basic physical reality that, relative to a larger reactor with a similar design and fuel cycle, neutron leakage will be enhanced in the SMR core. Therefore, most SMR designs entail a significant net disadvantage for nuclear waste disposal activities. Given that SMRs are incompatible with existing nuclear waste disposal technologies and concepts, future studies should address whether safe interim storage of reactive SMR waste streams is credible in the context of a continued delay in the development of a geologic repository in the United States.
Supporting Information
Appendix 01 (PDF)
Note
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. E.J.S. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
References…………………………….. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
Has the Coalition gone cold on nuclear power?
New Nationals leader David Littleproud is keeping up the party’s support for nuclear power in Australia, but is the debate dead in the political water? The post Has the Coalition gone cold on nuclear power? appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Has the Coalition gone cold on nuclear power? — RenewEconomy New Nationals leader David Littleproud says he will push for a debate on lifting legal bans which prohibit nuclear power plants in Australia, and that he plans to raise the issue with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Littleproud complained about the “demonisation” of nuclear power “without even putting the lens over new nuclear technology like small-scale modular.”
Has the Coalition gone cold on nuclear power?
Dr. Jim Green 1 June 2022 51
11
Shares
New Nationals leader David Littleproud says he will push for a debate on lifting legal bans which prohibit nuclear power plants in Australia, and that he plans to raise the issue with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Littleproud complained about the “demonisation” of nuclear power “without even putting the lens over new nuclear technology like small-scale modular.”
“Our party room will come to a position on that and it’s one that obviously we’re very passionate about,” Littleproud said. “We should back ourselves as Australians to do it better and safer than anyone else. But we need to educate before we legislate.”
Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce has also voiced support for nuclear power in recent days. Australia should embrace nuclear power to address climate change, Joyce said at a May 31 press conference, and Australia should be building small modular reactors.
Joyce also said at his press conference that he wouldn’t support a conversation within his party-room about the need to transition away from coal. So Joyce isn’t getting serious about climate
change – he’s playing politics.
Wedging the Labor Party on nuclear power is an old playbook that has never worked. John Howard supported nuclear power in his final years in office, swept up by President George Bush’s plans for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Has the Coalition gone cold on nuclear power?
Dr. Jim Green 1 June 2022 51
11
Shares
New Nationals leader David Littleproud says he will push for a debate on lifting legal bans which prohibit nuclear power plants in Australia, and that he plans to raise the issue with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Littleproud complained about the “demonisation” of nuclear power “without even putting the lens over new nuclear technology like small-scale modular.”
“Our party room will come to a position on that and it’s one that obviously we’re very passionate about,” Littleproud said. “We should back ourselves as Australians to do it better and safer than anyone else. But we need to educate before we legislate.”
Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce has also voiced support for nuclear power in recent days. Australia should embrace nuclear power to address climate change, Joyce said at a May 31 press conference, and Australia should be building small modular reactors.
Joyce also said at his press conference that he wouldn’t support a conversation within his party-room about the need to transition away from coal. So Joyce isn’t getting serious about climate change – he’s playing politics.
Wedging the Labor Party on nuclear power is an old playbook that has never worked. John Howard supported nuclear power in his final years in office, swept up by President George Bush’s plans for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
The Labor Party wasn’t wedged, but the Coalition was. At least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distanced themselves from the government’s pro-nuclear policy during the 2007 election campaign and the policy was ditched immediately after the election was lost.
Economist Professor John Quiggin notes that, in practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. It’s a safe bet that Joyce hopes that promoting nuclear power will slow the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, even if a reactor is never built.
Coalition culture warriors should take another look at the November 2021 article by veteran Murdoch columnist Paul Kelly.
Kelly pointed to the “popular pull of renewables” and their falling costs. He noted that “nuclear plant construction remains poor in advanced OECD nations, the main reason being not safety but its weak business case”. Kelly also questioned the rhetoric around small modular reactors given that “none has so far been built in developed nations”.
On the politics, Kelly wrote:
“The populist conservatives have form. Before the 2019 poll, they campaigned on the mad idea that Morrison follow Donald Trump and quit the Paris Agreement. Now they campaign on the equally mad but more dangerous idea that he seek to split the country by running on nuclear power… As for those conservatives who say Morrison’s job is to fight Labor, the answer is simple. His job is to beat Labor. That’s hard enough now; vesting the Coalition with an unnecessary ideological crusade that will crash and burn only means he would have no chance.”
The Coalition cools on nuclear
Joyce said he “would love to see the Labor party come onboard” with his nuclear push. But nuclear power doesn’t enjoy support within the Coalition and there is zero chance of Labor coming onboard.
It was John Howard’s Coalition government that banned nuclear power in Australia. That ban has been retained by every subsequent government including the Coalition governments led by Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison.
New Liberal leader Peter Dutton said on May 31 that nuclear power is currently “not on the table” for policy consideration and that he wants to reduce power prices, not increase them.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan supports nuclear power even though he has himself noted that nuclear power would increase power bills.
State coalition parties
An interesting feature of the 2019 federal parliamentary nuclear inquiry was that a number of state Coalition governments and parties made submissions opposing nuclear power while none made submissions supporting it.
The South Australian Liberal government’s submission said that “nuclear power remains unviable now and into the foreseeable future”.
The Tasmanian Liberal government’s submission said that “Tasmania will not pursue nuclear energy … and considers that Australia’s energy needs are best met by pursuing renewable energy options, such as pumped hydro, with additional firming capacity supported through greater grid
interconnection.”
Even the Queensland Liberal-National Party’s submission said that “the LNP does not support lifting the bipartisan ban on nuclear energy generation”, citing “unacceptably high health and safety risks” and “significant negative consequences for the environment”. The submission said that “Australia’s rich renewable energy resources are more affordable and bring less risk than the elevated cost and risk associated with nuclear energy”.
Likewise, the NSW Coalition government isn’t interested in nuclear power. Treasurer Matt Kean said that nuclear power was like “chasing a unicorn” and “doesn’t stack up at the moment on practical grounds or on economic grounds”. Kean said that nuclear is several times more expensive than renewables backed up with energy storage — a claim supported by CSIRO research.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull described nuclear power as the “loopy current fad … which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench.”
Teal independents
Perhaps the nuclear advocates within the Coalition think they might be able to win support from teal community independents elected to parliament at the May 21 election?
Indigenous owners call on the Labor government to scrap the nuclear waste dump plan
Bega District News, By Tim Dornin, June 1 2022 Traditional owners have called on the new federal Labor government to scrap plans for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
In December the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched legal action in the Federal Court to block the dump planned for Napandee, near Kimba.
It was seeking to overturn the Coalition government’s decision to develop the site by quashing the declaration of former resources minister Keith Pitt.
On Wednesday the corporation wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese urging him to step in.
It said the previous government had tried to silence the traditional owners at every turn, denying their right to participate in a community ballot to gauge local support for the site.
The corporation said the coalition also refused access to the land to undertake a proper heritage survey and tried to remove its right to judicial review.
“Although we appreciate all that Labor have done in opposition, the Barngarla people unequivocally make it clear that we request that the new Labor minister revoke the declaration or consent to the orders quashing the declaration,” it wrote in its letter to the PM.
“We call for this to occur at the earliest opportunity possible.”
The Barngarla said if the facility was built it would forever be located on a site where the First People did not get the right to vote.
“For these reasons we think that the government and country that you now lead needs to withdraw the declaration or consent to it being quashed,” the group told Mr Albanese.
“We see no other way.
“These are clearly not your failings or the failings of your government. You inherited them like we did.”
The Barngarla’s action is due to resume in the Federal Court on June 15.
In November last year, the previous government announced it had acquired 211 hectares at Napandee with the proposed facility subject to heritage, design and technical studies……..https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/7763627/labor-urged-to-scrap-nuclear-dump/
Book. Fact or Fission? The truth about Australia’s nuclear ambitions.
Scribe Publications has published a second, updated edition of former Australian Ambassador Prof. Richard Broinowski’s 2003 book Fact or Fission? The truth about Australia’s nuclear ambitions.
The book has just been published with two new chapters addressing the implications of the AUKUS announcement that Australia would purchase nuclear-powered submarines fuelled on highly-enriched uranium — see https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/fact-or-fission-9781922585745
Richard is planning to launch the updated Fact or Fission? at bookshops in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. The Sydney launch will be at Gleebooks, Glebe Point Rd, on Tuesday 14 June at 6 pm for 6:30 pm — see https://www.gleebooks.com.au/event/richard-broinowski-fact-or-fission/. The other launches are still to be finalised. The launches offer the opportunity for discussion about Australia’s potential role in nuclear proliferation and Australia’s capture by the US military and the US armaments industry.
Richard Broinowski – Fact or Fission – Gleebooks.com.auThis book examines Australia’s chequered nuclear history – from assisting the United States develop the first atomic bomb in the 1940s, wanting its own nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and then, in sudden reversal, being at the active forefront of international non-proliferation activities in the 1970s and 1980s.www.gleebooks.com.au |
Tanya Plibersek – at last – an Environment Minister who does care about the environment.
No demotion for Plibersek: Deputy PM
Deputy Labor leader Richard Marles defended the move, saying the environment ministry could not be characterised as a demotion, with the area front and centre of Labor’s priorities.
“Golden age of renewables” hailed at official launch of Australia’s biggest wind project — RenewEconomy
Acciona hails the “golden age of renewables” at the official ceremony to mark construction of Australia’s biggest wind farm. The post “Golden age of renewables” hailed at official launch of Australia’s biggest wind project appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Golden age of renewables” hailed at official launch of Australia’s biggest wind project — RenewEconomy
How going 100 pct renewables will shield one part of Australia from surging power prices — RenewEconomy
With the electricity market in crisis, one Australian jurisdiction could be shielded from higher prices thanks to buying 100 per cent renewables. The post How going 100 pct renewables will shield one part of Australia from surging power prices appeared first on RenewEconomy.
How going 100 pct renewables will shield one part of Australia from surging power prices — RenewEconomy
Australia need lots of storage, more transmission, and regulators who can factor in emissions — RenewEconomy
Australia’s regulators have been cut off at the knees, forced to ignore the biggest cost of electricity (GHG emissions) in infrastructure projects designed to reduce them. The post Australia need lots of storage, more transmission, and regulators who can factor in emissions appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia need lots of storage, more transmission, and regulators who can factor in emissions — RenewEconomy
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 