Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) preparing assessments for COP26
Against a backdrop of fires and floods, researchers are meeting virtually to finalise a key climate science study. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing the most comprehensive assessment on the
state of global heating since 2013.
Over the next two weeks, the scientists will go through their findings line by line with representatives of 195
governments. Experts say the report will be a “wake-up call” to governments. It is expected that the short, 40-page Summary for Policymakers will play an important role in guiding global leaders who will come to Glasgow in November to deal with critical climate questions.
BBC 26th July 2021
Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro, Putin and Morrison: The four leaders resisting global climate action — RenewEconomy
As countries prepare to return to international negotiations on climate, Australia will find itself lumped in the club of fossil fuelled rogues. The post Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro, Putin and Morrison: The four leaders resisting global climate action appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro, Putin and Morrison: The four leaders resisting global climate action — RenewEconomy
Old style tech to give major boost to Australia’s shift to wind and solar — RenewEconomy
New spinning machines about to join South Australia’s grid will allow the maximum output of wind and solar farms to be dramatically lifted. The post Old style tech to give major boost to Australia’s shift to wind and solar appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Old style tech to give major boost to Australia’s shift to wind and solar — RenewEconomy
July 26 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Powering Rural Economic Development With Renewables” • Electric cooperatives loom large in conversations about the US energy system’s past, present, and future, despite the fact that they serve only 13% of US electricity load. Importantly, they may have difficulties replacing their aging coal fleets with less costly wind and solar projects. [CleanTechnica] Transmission […]
July 26 Energy News — geoharvey
The Australian Parliament will have to pay attention to David Noonan’s detailed submission on ANSTO’s ill-advised nuclear waste storage plan.
Ed note. This is a long tough read. But it’s worth it!
The federal gov. must stop compromising safety and security in SA with their untenable nuclear
waste storage plan and accept Extended Storage of nuclear fuel waste and ILW at Lucas Heights.
The NSC advice states that dual handling in transport associated with interim storage “does not
represent international best practice”; and raises implications for both safety and security noting
that “ANSTO already has comprehensive security arrangements in place” at Lucas Heights.
There is no technical reason why ANSTO can-not conduct Extended Storage of ILW on-site, at least
through-out the period of ongoing OPAL reactor licensed waste production operations to 2057.
There will be consequences if the federal Minister imposes a NRWMF onto unwilling community in
SA and declares a fancy shed at Napandee on Eyre Peninsula an indefinite nuclear waste store:
Submission No. 3 To: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry: “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW” Public Submission by David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. RE: Extended storage of ANSTO’s ILW on-site at Lucas Heights is warranted until availability of a final disposal option. The indefinite Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste & ILW in SA is untenable. Dear Secretary Please consider this Submission with five Recommendations (see p.4), the Reports and further info sought from ANSTO, and my request to provide evidence as a Witness in a PWC Inquiry Hearing.
I raise public interest matters for the Public Works Committee (PWC) to consider and to report on to the Houses of Parliament (see Contents p.4). In accordance with requirements in the Public Works Committee Act 1969 Section 17 Functions of the Committee, and having regard to Sec.17(2) for “alterations to the proposals for the work that … are necessary or desirable to ensure the most effective use” of public works in this case. Recommendation 1: ANSTO’s proposed public works on Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) storage must be altered to provide for the necessary and proper Contingency to retain ILW on-site in safe and secure extended storage at Lucas Heights “until the availability of a final disposal option”.
The proponent entity ANSTO’s proposed public works and Submission No.1 do not reflect the agency’s duty to provide for the necessary and proper Contingency in safe and secure on-site management of ILW at Lucas Heights up to the availability of a final (off-site) disposal option. The ARPANSA CEO stated in relevant evidence (June 2020) to a Senate Inquiry on the NRWMF Amendment Bill 2020, that: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.” ANSTO’s “Interim Waste Store” Operating Licence (2015) was approved by ARPANSA with a Contingency to store reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes “until the availability of a final disposal option” (see p.10-13). That key License “is not time limited” with an approval to operate for over 40 years.
ARPANSA cite this long-standing required Contingency for “Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal option” in ARPANSA’s Submission No.86 (Sept 2020, p.4) to the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry on the NRWMF Bill 2020. ANSTO has a duty to manage ILW in accordance with the same standard of Contingency required by ARPANSA for the provision of safe and secure on-site storage of nuclear fuel waste at Lucas Heights. Both ANSTO’s ILW and the highly hazardous nuclear fuel wastes accrued at Lucas Heights operations are stated by the regulator ARPANSA to require radiation shielding, safe handling and security, and to require isolation from people and from the environment for over 10 000 years (see p.19).
In contrast, the ANSTO proposed public works extend ILW storage capacity by a decade toward 2037 and are il-advisably premised on transfer of ANSTO’s ILW to an interim above ground Store in SA. These matters, and the questionable credibility of ANSTO’s premise. go to ANSTO’s duties and activities under Sec.17(4): “the Committee shall have regard to the functions, powers and duties of the authority … in relation to the activities of the authority concerned.”
In accordance with Sec.17(3)(e) “the present and prospective public value of the work” will bemaximised by the PWC requiring that ANSTO public works are fully compatibility with the necessaryContingency to retain ILW on-site until availability of a final disposal option.Recommendation 2: ANSTO must not pre-empt ARPANSA Licensing decisions. ANSTO mustplan for the valid Contingency that an ARPANSA Approval for indefinite duration aboveground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in SA may not be granted.
ANSTO’s overarching assumption to transfer ILW to an interim above ground Store in SA – an event
which may never occur – may compromise the stated purpose of works and the suitability of works.
This matter goes to Sec.17(3) “In considering and reporting on a public work, the Committee shall
have regard to: (a) the stated purpose of the work and its suitability for that purpose.”
Recommendation 3: The PWC must require and confirm the suitability of any assented
ANSTO public works to provide for – and comply with – the necessary Contingency to retain
ILW on-site at Lucas Heights until a final disposal option is available.
The PWC should take note that ARPANSA have said they expect separate License Applications for the
proposed NRWM Low-Level Waste disposal facility in SA; AND for the proposed indefinite duration
above ground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in regional SA.
This PWC Inquiry must consider the fact that ARPANSA Approval may not be granted for proposed
indefinite duration above ground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in SA – irrespective of whetheror-not ARPANSA Approval is granted for proposed Low Level Waste disposal in SA.
Recommendation 4: Transparency requires ANSTO must release key ILW Reports and
further information to provide an adequate basis for informed decision making in
consideration by the PWC and to facilitate informed public interest input to this Inquiry.
Including: Two ANSTO Intermediate Level nuclear waste Reports required as part of
ARPANSA Licensing Conditions and due to the regulator by 30 June 2020, AND the formal
response(s) by ARPANSA.
These important Reports were requested to be released during the 2020 Senate Inquiry (see p.5).
I request Transparency from ANSTO and present Questions for the proponent to answer (see p.6).
Recommendation 5: The PWC Inquiry should consider proposed indefinite storage of ANSTO
nuclear fuel waste and ILW in SA is untenable and compromises safety and security in SA.
ANSTO’s premise to transfer ILW into indefinite storage in SA is contrary to International
Best Practice (IBP) and does not comply with ARPANSA Committee advice (see p.8-9).
The ARPANSA Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (April 2010) provided advice to the CEO
which concluded that: “Australia’s current policy of indefinite storage for intermediate level waste
does not appear to be consistent with international best practice.”
ARPANSA stated in 2015 that the NRWMF plan “will have the provision for ILW storage above ground
for approximately 100 years” – effectively indefinitely – which is not consistent with IBP (see p.19).
ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee (NSC, Nov 2013) provided advise to the CEO that dual
handling transport for interim storage “does not represent International Best Practice”, and
importantly: “also has implications for security”.
The NSC (Nov 2016) advised the CEO that it was “essential” to engage communities along waste
transport routes (see p.20). In 5 years of targeting SA for required shipping of ANSTO nuclear fuel
waste through an SA Port and for trucking ILW across SA, this has not been done.
The fact that a pending UK shipment of reprocessed ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and associated ILW
due in 2022 is to go into ANSTO’s existing “Interim Waste Store” at Lucas Heights (see p.5), safety
rated by ARPANSA out to 2055, provides further evidence the proposed Store in SA in unnecessary.
Federal Labor question ARWA and why ILW should be moved from one temporary store to another
Imposition of a nuclear waste dump will be an issue in the March 2022 SA Election (see p.14-16).
Continue readingSubmission: AZARK PROJECT says that Kimba nuclear waste plan is completely unnecessary, and irrelevant to nuclear medicine.
national nuclear waste facility at Kimba the existence or otherwise of which will have no effect whatsoever on the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO
the importance and use of nuclear medicine locally is significantly
decreasing as there is a general reluctance and reduction by modern medicinein using nuclear isotopes for medical purposes in preference to much safer means to diagnose and treat medical conditions which were previously the
subject of nuclear medicine.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry into the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights
SUBMISSIONS BY AND ON BEHALF OF AZARK PROJECT PTY LTD, Peter Remta 26 July 21
INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
A. The proposed increase in the nuclear waste storage capacity at Lucas Heights by constructing a new storage facility is a completely unnecessary and expensive exercise which is only perpetuating the government’s inappropriate plans for a waste management facility at Kimba.
B, Serious and urgent consideration should be given to the establishment of the underground nuclear waste facility at Leonora by Azark Project due to its international recognition and acceptance for its unsurpassed suitability and safety.
C. Several members of the Committee should be excluded from any participation in deciding the merits of establishing or funding of the facility for the additional storage since they have previously made ill-founded and unjustified statements praising the proposals for Kimba…….
Continue readingSubmission: Barry Wakelin – ”interim” storage of nuclear waste at Kimba is a poor plan, with no commitment to planning for a permanent solution
Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.
Sumission No. 4 Public Works Submission – Barry Wakelin OAM, Kimba, S A, 23 Juy 21,
I present this submission as someone with 15 years of Federal Parliamentary Service: and as a former Public Works Committee member and citizen of Kimba observing the machinations of a proposed “temporary” site for ILW (Intermediate Level Waste at KImba.) Mainly, promoted as a Low Level Waste site by government representatives .
I was closely involved with the Woomera attempt at a nuclear waste site. The great thing about being free of party politics is the time to become better informed and to develop my own clearer, fairer and individual opinions.
Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.
Small communities like Kimba and its 95% agricultural dependence, have no government guarantee against health and economic damage from a ILW nuclear waste facility.
The defacto international nuclear waste via the suggested sixfold increase in the ANSTO export of nuclear medicine is in conflict with South Australian government policy and should not be inflicted upon a small rural community which is ignored by policy enforcers.
The question must be asked: why should a community of 0.00004% of Australians be bribed or emotionally blackmailed by the government using taxpayers’ funds to bludgeon 400 people at $200,000 each, in to accepting a nuclear Dump on behalf of 25million Australians who predominantly say NO . Not least of all are
government organisations like the Department of Defence who say the nuclear waste is too dangerous to be placed on their land ,the size of Tasmania.
If it takes this much money from government to convince a small community to accept the government’s argument which only gives the country a”temporary” nuclear waste facility of very limited value it is a a sad waste of taxpayer’s funds.
A commitment to the search for a permanent disposal site for ILW has not occurred and considering
2037 is the timeline; it is reasonable to accept that a “temporary” storage will not be required due to the new facilities at Lucas Heights The nuclear reactor will always have some temporary ILW storage.
It is clear to me that there is a reasonable prospect over the next fifteen years to find a suitable site
for permanent disposal of ILW suitably geologically and seismologically.
It is a privilege to be able to offer from my long term involvement in this difficult issue a view on the
justice or otherwise, which has been inflicted upon my magnificent community for the past six years.
I offer my best wishes to the Committee for your considerations.
.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt and his bald-faced lies about the Leonora nuclear waste proposal
26 July Kazzi Jai on Whyalla Pitt lies
“Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt said the government did not receive detailed information to independently assess a site at Leonora, and couldn’t accept “unverified information” which could “cut short” the consultation and assessment process.”
This is the BIGGEST BALD FACED LIE Minister Keith Pitt has said yet!!
The current Leonora site proposal HAS been actively giving the Feds detailed information since 2017 I believe…..at EXACTLY the SAME TIME as Kimba was allowed to SUBMIT AGAIN into the mix after being taken COMPLETELY OFF the list in April 2016, after being deemed unsuitable!
Can’t have it both ways!
In fact ANOTHER site in Leonora Western Australia WAS in the mix back in 2015, as one of the SEVEN short listed sites deemed suitable by the Feds – by the then Josh Frydenberg as Minister at the time!
It was a different site in Leonora – but nevertheless, echoes the SAME SITUATION as Kimba in many ways!
Regional site in Western Australia geologically and geographically suited to nuclear waste repositary, unlike the Kimba site in S.A.
West Australia site could house nuclear waste, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield 22 July 21,
A regional site in Western Australia regarded by experts as one of the best sites in the world for nuclear storage should be used instead of Napandee for the federal government’s nuclear waste dump.
This is according to Peter Remta, the Executive Director of the Azark Project, who are developing an underground facility for the disposal of nuclear waste near Leonora in Western Australia.
Mr Remta said the site is within the Bardu Aboriginal peoples tribal land and is considered the best in the world for an underground disposal facility due to its geological structure.
“The Azark site is geologically and geophysically set in granite hard rock going from near surface to many kilometres in depth being a natural structure that has not moved,” he said.
“It is a natural structure that has not moved for over two billion years which makes it ideal in every respect for the geological burial of nuclear waste.”
The proximity to necessary infrastructure and amenities, access to a competent workforce, and high degree of security are other factors which Mr Remta says make Leonora an ideal nuclear waste storage site………..
By contrast, Mr Remta said there were many issues with siting a Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) at Napandee, near Kimba.
“The Napandee farm is in the heart of prime agricultural land, so there’s a very real possibility of completely decimating the agricultural industry of the Kimba region and a large part of the Eyre Peninsula,” he said.
Should this occur, Mr Remnta said it would go against all safety codes and prescriptions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
“Napandee is a completely unsuitable site to host the facility,” he said.
Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt said the government did not receive detailed information to independently assess a site at Leonora, and couldn’t accept “unverified information” which could “cut short” the consultation and assessment process.
“Additionally, the communities around Leonora did not have the benefit of an in-depth consultation process, or the time to consider the details of the proposed facility,” he said.
“This stands in contrast to other communities who have had the benefit of extensive consultation to assist them make an informed decision on any proposed NRWMF.
“The selection of a suitable site will be the culmination of extensive technical work and consultation undertaken over a number of years.
“As the government has said previously, the site for the facility will be in a community that has demonstrated broad support.”………….https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/7352659/west-australia-site-could-house-nuclear-waste/?fbclid=IwAR2EQ5S2Z27iovKYFTm_CD8AOCtL967iA2RcZO3v-EscZz93Kq-hcWgktzY
Western Australian site far more suitable than Kimba, South Australia, for nuclear waste dump
Leonora site ‘ideal’ for N-dump, Andrew Probyn Kalgoorlie Miner, Tue, 3 November 2015 The man behind WA’s only short-listed site for a radioactive waste dump says the mulga scrub near Leonora would be an ideal home for the world’s spent nuclear fuel rods.
Glenn Baker, who owns 100ha submitted by the Shire of Leonora for a low and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump, said the area had the stable geology, environment and remoteness necessary for a world repository of nuclear waste……. https://www.kalminer.com.au/news/goldfields/leonora-site-ideal-for-n-dump-ng-ya-131750?fbclid=IwAR2SsUSc7MBhMP-3YKuEaXmVLtqiwU53FJbeVz-0iQKArCjQ57HJ6v8Qr5w
Nuclear power is not feasible for Australia
Nuclear is not feasible https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/nuclear-is-not-feasible-20210724-p58cl4.html
Your correspondent unfortunately ignores the time scale of any nuclear installation in eastern Australia (“Making the nuclear case”, Rod Cripps, Letters, The Sunday Age, 18/7).
Their massive water usage for cooling means a coastal installation (remember Japan’s Fukushima plant?). Where? It would take at least 15 years to get public approval of any site, by which time we will have burnt.
Nuclear can’t compete on price with even coal or gas, both of which are already becoming uncompetitive with renewables. To even consider it just gives our incompetent federal “denialista” more arguments for delaying critical action now.
The nuclear industry determined to influence climate talks before COP26
Nuclear industry under fire for trying to influence climate talks ahead of COP26. The National By Rob Edwards 25 July 21, HE nuclear industry has come under fire for trying to influence international talks in the run-up to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November.
Six people from the European Nuclear Society registered to attend UN negotiations in May and June. Two were from the UK Government’s Magnox Ltd, which is decommissioning nuclear plants, and one was from the US nuclear firm, Westinghouse.
There were also 12 representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN body charged with both promoting and regulating nuclear power, plus one from the Canadian Nuclear Association.
The nuclear industry was accused by environmentalists of “jumping on the bandwagon” of climate change. “The latest wheeze is to tell us that nuclear is the answer,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland.
“With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper, quicker and safer than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place at COP26. The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time over-runs show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.”
Pete Roche, policy adviser to the Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities, said: “When you look at nuclear power you find it is hopelessly expensive, far too slow to be of any use and hugely problematic – producing dangerous waste and with a potential risk of a serious accident.”……….. https://www.thenational.scot/news/19466992.nuclear-industry-fire-trying-influence-climate-talks-ahead-cop26/
A strong convention on radioactive waste safety means that nuclear’s toxic by-products should be kept as close as possible to the point of production
Paul Waldon Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia ·
Remember “Claytons Beer.” A beer that’s not a beer.
Well, we have reached the 20 year anniversary of when “The Joint Convention,” came into force. The Joint Convention has been described as the first legal instrument to address used fuel rods and radioactive waste management safety across this earth.”So is it fair to say this a Claytons Convention?” Remember the beer didn’t have the alcohol content, only the taste.
This maybe nothing but a watered down “Basel Convention.” The Basel Convention was overlooking the safety of the populous by addressing the control of any transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, which came into force in 1992, with over 170 members, and Australia becoming a member in 1992.
The Basel Convention’s charter makes mention that hazardous byproducts should be kept, managed and disposed of as close as possible to the point of production. However, radioactive products are exempt from the Basel Convention’s charter. I put it to you, to maintain the integrity of any legal instrument for handling radioactive products or by-products we should adopt the Basel Convention’s charter. That would install faith in the populous and any community that’s willing to embrace nuclear production will have to accept the product that’s produced there.
“No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation — RenewEconomy
Clean Energy Council launches new ad campaign to spur Australians to action, with the message that ‘renewables are here now’. The post “No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation — RenewEconomy
Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time — RenewEconomy
Updated: Relaxation of constraints in South Australia allows wind energy to set third output record in a week in Australia’s main grid. The post Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time — RenewEconomy
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 