Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

SUBMISSIONS to 2019 INQUIRIES

FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia

19 September – 43 submissions newly published. (22 anti-nuclear, 18 pro nuclear, 3 neutral.)  I have not analysed these new ones, but they are listed below.

SUBMISSIONS PUBLISHED up to 19 September – These are here listed in alphabetical order. Also a summary of each is here, in alphabetical order , (of surnames) Pro nuclear submissions are headed in RED, Anti-nuclear ones are headed in GREEN.

 Don’t let’s forget – some submissions are “confidential” – (quite likely a few from nuclear companies)  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Nuclearenergy/Submissions

Pro nuclear

American Nuclear Society 73

Angwin, Michael 50 

Askin, Henry 113

Australian Petroleum International Exploration and Development  67

Barker, Clif  53

Biegler, Tom 56 

Billard , Geoff(No 31)
Brown,  Gavin (No 1)
Brown, Stephen (24)

Bulmer, Clive 98

Chamley, Wayne (65)

Chilman, Kevin F 92
Fischer ,Ian (No 8 )

Gillard, Henry 102

Gishubl,  Robert (28)
Gribble, Eric ( 38)

Gustafson, Matthew (20)

Hill, Barry (60)

Hydricity Systems (54) {limited)  pro 
Hudson, Geoffrey (37)

James, Ronald 89
Jane, Martin 88

Kondakalla Naveesh Reddy 94 

Krieg, Terry (61

McConville, Stuart (55)

McCrae, Susan 110

McCusker, Barney 81

 Moltex Energy 82 

Murphy,  Barry (12)
Myers, Paul (10)

Nimbalker, Gershon 109

NuScale 71
Petersen, Terje (17 )  (same as his submission to NSW Inquiry)
Price,  Goronwy ( 35)
Ryan,  Terry ( 14 )

SM Consulting 84 pro
Smith,  Denys J ( 15)

Smith. Logan 107

Smithson Planning 99

SMR Technologies (39)

Speck, Peter 108 

Stephan. Adrian (64)

Switkowski, Ziggy (41)  

Thompson,  Keith ( 11)
ThorCon US, Inc(29)

Timmers, Heiko (83) 

Tregoning, Claudia (51)
Tripp,  Allen (18 )   (total 30)

Anti nuclear

Abbott,  Derek (7)

Allen, David (46)
Allen, Lyn and  Ledgar, Richard (30)

Barnes, Richard 69
Bennet,  Ian ( 23)

Blakers, Andrew 97

Bowden,Warren 106
Briggs,  Peter L (13)

Coquillard, Arnaud (59) 

Davis, Joshua 100

Diesendorf, Mark 86
Drake,  John ( 26)
EcoEnviro Pty Ltd – Richard Finlay-Jones (6)

Faulkner, Carol 105

Fisher, Peggy (49) 

Fitzsimmons, Mark 48
Frail, Trish (32)

Fricker-Hamton, Valerie 77
Gates,  David (9 )

Graham, James 104

Hallam, John (21)

Hardisty, Heidi 75
Hess, Dale (34) (full text)

IEEFA 103

Madigan, Michele 87

Maxwell,  Glenda (3)

McDonald, Bruce (33)

Miell, Geoff 96

Mills, Chris 68

Moses, Howard, 74

Myer,  Greig (25)

Nickell, Denis (62)

PaYUng Contracting 91

Peter,  Jonathan ( 2 )

Ramana, M V 95

Rossen, Angela 76
Savi , Paul ( 4 )  

Smith, Helen (44)

Stubbs, Leonie 90

Tregeagle, Susan (43)
Tropp-Asher, Fred (57)

Unions Shoalhaven 79

Von Kontz, Sandor 66 

Wauchope, Noel 72

Willoughby, John 111

Wolfe, Gregory (45)  (Total 25)

Unknown

ASNO 153 neutral not enthusiastic

Duncan, Ian J 80  neutral ?not enthusiastic 

Hewett, Alan ( 27 ) (I was unable to open zip)

Nelson Parade Action Group 85 neutral not enthusiastic

Quiggin, John – ambivalent
No. 22 confidential

Abbott,  Derek (7) 1. Nuclear power is not appropriate in Australia as our national electricity market is only about $10 billion per annum. This is tiny compared to industrialised nations that have nuclear power. 
  1. The cost of even one nuclear reactor together with supporting infrastructure, waste disposal etc. is many times that value. Thus, there is no business case for nuclear in Australia. …… a technology that will be largely redundant in the modern grid.numerous other reasonsgives link referring to his publications

Allen, David (46) For a Solution to be a Solution, “First the Solution must be Possible. ….. Both the State and Federal Governments have been trying to build a low level nuclear waste
dump in S.A.’s outback. ….. We are still trying today, with sites at Kimba and Hawker in SA. They cannot get approval, because it is political suicide. …..  If the Australian voting public will not accept nuclear, then that solution is not possible.”

The 19th century model of massive power stations connected by vast distances to users, with enormous wastage are over. Engineering tells you that model is not efficient.  ……. Building 12 – 16 [smaller] nuclear power plants to replace Australia’s coal fired power stations will never happen . Not because it can’t be done. It can. But any Government who tries to do it, will be sent to the political graveyard.”

Nuclear has leave times of up to 20 years between concept and power delivery in comparable western nations. It is not a solution for the time lines imposed by the science.

Economics. The world’s most successful and up to date nuclear power plant builder has gone

bankrupt. “ He quotes news on wind and solar being cheaper than nuclear or coal, and on Australia as a “fossil fuel pariah” He states that nuclear power isc safe, but not politically possible.

Renewables = The last solution standing. Like it or not.

Allen, Lyn and  Ledgar, Richard (30)  ..there are overwhelming economic, environmental and social reasons why nuclear energy is not an appropriate contributor to Australia’s energy mix.

If Australia is going to move to a sustainable future then we need to concentrate on producing energy from renewable resources. Uranium is not a renewable resource and even more so than coal, uranium mining produces waste that remains toxic for thousands of years.

Additionally, while nuclear power generation does not produce greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases are produced at every step in the process from mining to refinement and building nuclear power generation facilities. Like uranium mines, nuclear power stations expose the community and the environment in which they are built to significant risks ……

The future of Australia’s energy generation should to take advantage of our abundant natural resources such as sun, wind, tidal potential. Nuclear power station are massively expensive to build and take years to complete, whereas wind and solar generators and new storage technology (such as the batteries installed in South Australia) can be developed quickly and relatively inexpensively …

water. Generating nuclear power needs large quantities of water. Given Australia’s climatic conditions, the shortage of water in many of our major river systems,

Many countries around the world that currently use nuclear power are already starting to phase it out in favour of wind and solar generation. Australia can get in front of the energy production business by putting our skills, and efforts into an alternative energy grid that suits our climate, is safe for future generation and takes advantage of ‘free’ sources of energy. 

Barker, Clif (53) 
Short submission – solely deals with recommending thorium nuclear reactors.

Bennet, , Ian (23) ….The idea of creating these items to power inland small communities is a brilliant idea.

I do ask several questions. These are the following:

1: So far there are no installed working systems. All the current systems are either in design, and have been doing this for over 8 years, or decommissioned as shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor. My question to the committee is why are we going to be the first in the world

2: Where will all the water to be used be sourced from and what will be done to store the irradiated water for the life required by international standards

3: How are we going to secure these SMR’s across the country in these days of higher terrorism levels?

4: What is the LCOE for each SMR including training up all the operators required, buying the water, storing the waste water and funding the security.

5: Can the report show what subsidies are being requested to make these SMR’s producing power at the same cost as Solar, Wind, Coal and coupled with hydro and deep cycle batteries such as Vanadium. Lithium batteries are not deep cycle and will cause environmental damage in 20 years

6: Will these been manufactured and if here in Australia will the government force the firm to be 100% Australian so that all the money is kept in Australia and not offshored to tax havens like Singapore and the Cayman Is.

7: Will the systems go the same way as the government funded coal power stations in that they were sold off? The private operators reduced maintenance to the point that plants like Hazelwood repeatedly had to close its turbines.

 Biegler, Tom (56)    Lengthy explanation of his qualifications and expertise in science. He rejects the idea that renewables are better than nuclear power. Says that nuclear power will be essential for Australia.

“The main outcome of this Inquiry should be to ensure that there is a legitimate pathway for the development of nuclear energy in Australia. “ Says the whole world will need nuclear, especially to minimise carbon emissions.

He finds strange Australia’s “peculiar aversion”to nuclear.

Discusses various sources of clean energy, and includes nuclear power as clean.  Lengthy discussion of electricity, concluding that renewable energy will be inadequate, and that Australia will need nuclear energy.

Billard, Geoff (31)  Nuclear energy has the potential to be a significant source of base-load and environmentally favourable energy in Australia.

Technical Aspects, including Community Engagement ….. what understanding there is has been informed by nuclear “catastrophes” and accidents that have made news over the years – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The recent Chernobyl television series has only exacerbated this issue.

……Need to educate public on safety of today’s nuclear. Recommends education from World Nuclear Association……. competition will ensure that the technologies continue to evolve and that the best will succeed in an internationally competitive market. This can only be a good thing as Australia also contemplates future nuclear generation.

Economic Feasibility  Recommends high regulatory and evironmental protection systems…. level playing field – evaluate investments…..

In my opinion, the government should commit to a simple energy mantra – energy needs to be the lowest cost, sustainable (including environmentally responsible) supply for all customers, whether domestic, commercial or industrial. Australia has lost its natural competitive advantage of abundant, low cost energy. Over time, steps need to be taken to restore this energy competitive advantage ….

Nuclear energy may have a role in the future, but it must be on the basis of its competitive advantages (financial and environmental) and a level playing field for energy supply, which is technology agnostic. 

Briggs,  Peter L (13) Nuclear costs. Refers to Windscale accident in UK. Danger – terrorism risk.

Brown,  Gavin (No 1)– promoting thorium nuclear power as having less waste, and because Australia has a lot of thorium resoureces. Adds a link to a propaganda document about thorium   (not very convincing.)
Brown, Stephen (24)  (short hand-written}  –  advocates thorium and govt funded research – because it would make great profits

Chamley, Wayne 65 strongly advocates for thorium nuclear power. Gives the history and features of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

“I understand that there is an existing MOU between ANSTO and the Shanghai institute for Applied Physics. This
Institute has the brief to further develop the LFTR technology for China and two experimental reactors are being built in the Gobi Desert  “

Coquillard, Arnaud (59) Says that the government is considering Generation IV nuclear reactors, but they don’t even exist yet. Their safety over time is uncertain. They still produce toxic wastes. Uranium mining is also environmentally harmful. Australia should develop non nuclear clean energy technologies. 

Please think of the people that you represent, the responsibility you have towards humanity, the plant and animal kingdom and the planet as a whole. Compare that responsibility to the minority of corporate, businessman that pressure you to have nuclear power plant.”

This country is committed to using coal — see recent Pacific forum — so why talk about nuclear energy? –

(Refers to nuclear disasters overseas) Australian reactors will have accidents. Human error is part of being human whether the error is directly human or programmed by humans, that is, computers for instance are prone to human error. There was a recent accident at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney which proves the point. –

Nuclear energy leads to military use – nukes. – Terrorists love stealing nuclear material. – We have other alternatives which are safe.

Coquillard, Arnaud (59) Says that the government is considering Generation IV nuclear reactors, but they don’t even exist yet. Their safety over time is uncertain. They still produce toxic wastes. Uranium mining is also environmentally harmful. Australia should deveop non nuclear clean energy technologies.  “Please think of the people that you represent, the responsibility you have towards humanity, the plant and animal kingdom

and the planet as a whole. Compare that responsibility to the minority of corporate, businessman that pressure you to have nuclear
power plant.”

EcoEnviro Pty Ltd Richard Finlay-Jones (6) . This is an excellent submission, which addresses each of the Terms of Reference. It is published in full, on this site.

Fisher. Peggy  ( 49)
I am extremely concerned that Australia is again considering nuclear energy.
I do understand some of the micro plants are presumed safer than previous larger nuclear power stations, but the same was said of the last wave of technology. I clearly remember having a discussion with proponents of Nuclear telling me that ‘Chernobyl’ could never happen again.’Plants were much safer now’
That was the day before the Fukushima. There is still no way to deal safely with nuclear waste, and until such time we should not even be entering the discussion.
The waste, the cost, the water use, and the danger all make nuclear a very bad option.
The environmental damage in mining the uranium is also extremely worrying.
The government would be far better off really getting involved with, and giving support to what we know works. We know renewables esp wind and solar, with storage back-up areproven technologies. We know hydrogen made with renewables could be a fantastic option for export. Support micro-grids, support more pumped hydro, (not only snowy 2).
Make sure that the AEC allows reforms that will support more renewables, not constantly hindering them.
This government seems to have reverse blinkers on, not looking at options that are clean and sustainable, and instead looking for expensive, polluting and dangerous options.
The money spent on this review would have been much better spent on how to support clean technologies
Fischer ,Ian (No 8 ) Says renewables are unreliable. Advocates Gen IV reactors especially SMRs (compared to conventional reactors) – they produce less wastes.  “It is my submission that a Voluntary postal survey (plebiscite) be conducted after the Committee hands down its findings to allow the Australian Public to decide if nuclear power is part of Australia’s future.” 
Fitzsimmons, Mark (48) “Long term security of the waste/spent fuel rods is my main concern with nuclear power.
There is talk of Gen4 reactors small enough to fit on the back of a truck, be deployed to individual townships, and the waste fuel is required to be safe stored for “only” 300 years.
Waste fuel is a liability to a private generator company and you can bet there will be ample opportunities in 300 years to divert some of this material for extremist use as there is little incentive to divert potential profit towards unproductive security measures.
I imagine a scenario whereby material is obtained from one the many proposed small plants, or from the transport cycle of this material (what company is going to secure a few kilos of material for hundreds of years in multiple separate locations?) and incorporated into a dirty bomb. You
would not need a large quantity – the object is to frighten people and contaminate a large area.
This bomb is detonated upwind the CBD of Sydney or Melbourne.
The city would be deserted as soon as the hazard is known and remain so for years, thereby destroying Australia’s economy.
If you can come with a cost effective solution to ensure it is impossible to access this material for hundreds of years, then I won’t have any issue with the proposal.
Otherwise the unintended consequences of this type of power generation is unacceptable
Frail, Trish (32) No Bundabunda on our land (FULL TEXT ) No Bundabunda on Ngemba Land Nuclear Power – A joke

In January 2019 scientist stated that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be”, so let’s go back 60000years to and acknowledge that First Nations People knew the land, and knew that the rocks that made nuclear were dangerous and poisonous so they were never touched and our land was well taken care of until 1952 and 1957 with nuclear explosions at Montebello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga, those lands are still struggling to recover and they never will be like they were back in 1951.

For government to now investigate the idea of Nuclear Power is a joke and a dangerous joke at that. To have nuclear power we have to change our laws to suit it, it is expensive to run, mining the nuclear and transporting it and then we have the nuclear waste to deal with.

I will make the statement that no nuclear waste will be coming to Brewarrina.

Considering we are struggling with droughts throughout Australia nuclear power consumes roughly 400 gallons of water per megawatt-hour, 320 billion gallons of water were consumed by United States nuclear power plant electricity generation in 2015. To put that into perspective, that is enough water freshwater to fill over 480,000 Olympic pools. [1] Our land could not afford this water our people are struggling with no water, towns that have never been on water restrictions are now trying to cope with water restrictions, rivers have dried up, water is being transported in and given out to the communities and small towns are shutting down because there is no water and now the government wants to support the idea of a nuclear power station which is greedy with water. We have the fastest growing global energy – renewable, we need to be world leaders and embrace it

Gates,  David (9 )– Nuclear is uneconomic.  Gives examples of nuclear’s economic problems in UK and USA. Renewable energy and storage costs are much less. Security of nuclear – a costly problem. Water requirements.

Gishubl, Robert (28)  “…. The introduction of nuclear power generation will introduce no nuclear waste for many years and this provides sufficient time for Australia to develop sound nuclear waste management system of recycling used fuel and implement the waste management strategies recommended in House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources “Australia’s uranium  Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world”

The waste generated by other forms of power generation are not managed nearly as responsibly as nuclear ….

b. health and safety, Nuclear power is safe as it has the lowest deaths per GWhr of electricity produced. A significant advantage of nuclear power is that it has very small quantities of hazardous waste that are very easily detected. ….Solar PV panels s have significant toxic and carcinogenic elements in manufacturing

Uses Fukushima to show that Australia would have a better regulator…

  1. environmental impacts, The environmental impact of nuclear power generation is minimal, ….compares with solar
  1. energy affordability and reliability, With the advent of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) it opens the opportunity for serial production line manufacturing of nuclear power stations which will see benefits of reduced cost schedule and reliability ….

e. economic feasibility, The levels of Solar and wind already saturate the grid at certain times so adding further capacity is of no benefit without substantial increase in storage capacity.

F ( Claims that nuclear cheaper than conventional – SmR will be even cheaper)

f. community engagement, “The most difficult aspect of using nuclear power is the irrational faith based objections many people have. It is quite ironic that many people who are protesting about climate change do not understand how a modern power grid works and the needs of industry. They are advocating reduction in CO2 but are actually causing increased coal and gas consumption by objecting to nuclear power. ……”

To overcome the entrenched negative opinion significant effort will be required to improve people’s knowledge on nuclear power and the safety of modern plants. This should include education is schools about the relative safety and pollution of all forms of power generation including construction and decommissioning. …”

g. “is time to increase training in nuclear technologies to support a nuclear power industry....”

h. security implications, “…… Developing a civilian nuclear industry would allow the development of nuclear fuel processing which could result in a replacement of yellowcake exports with manufactured fuel rods. This would make it easier to trace the nuclear material reducing the risk of diversion and improving security.”

Nuclear power is the only proven technology that can supply reliable power with very low CO2 footprint; it is safe and affordable and should be an option for Australia to reduce its CO2 emissions. Failure to utilize nuclear power for electrical power generation is accepting continued use of fossil fuels and agreeing to increase global warming

Gribble , Eric (38) addresses the question of ionising radiation – nuclear power development is safe, but held back by  “a widespread paranoid concern due to a lack of understanding of what radiation is.”

Goes on to explain that radiation can be beneficial – quotes some dubious science from 2002 and 1992…. “It appears that slightly elevated levels of radiation are beneficial but levels above 100 mSv the risk appears to increase. .. “ Quotes some study showing that radiation decreases incidence of lung cancer. Claims that Fukushima nuclear accident caused only one death due to material falling upon a man. No evidence of cancer caused.

Uses Hiroshima studies to dismiss concerns about radiation dangers…

Says nuclear power “is safe and the only option

Renewables do not stack up on a cost basis.”

Raves on about hydroponics and space … If space travel is to become a reality using existing technology mankind will need a massive amount of energy. Energy to make rocket fuel. ….. Nuclear energy will open up the future. “”

. “Nuclear energy is the energy source of the future, Australia cannot afford to continue to let opportunities slide.”

It is easy to be a green. You simply oppose everything, dams, nuclear, fossil fuels, the free enterprise system, whatever. Yet there are many people (probably most people) out there who are as concerned about the environment as the most rabid green but do not support the green movement.”

Gustafson, Matthew (20)  Enthuses over molten salt reactors, but wants a nuclear waste import business first.

I would highly recommend Australia pursue the research, development and deployment of nuclear technologies. However, I would strongly urge against the government investing or committing to current commercial reactor designs. …

I would suggest the government pursue the recommendations of the commission and deploy a nuclear storage facility (waste bank) based upon the strong economic incentives detailed in the report. Following this I would suggest that the revenue generated for the safe storage of nuclear waste from our international customers be used to fund next generation (so called Gen IV) reactor designs. ..

Generation IV designs meet 21st century criteria that I believe the nation will be more accepting of such as: – Ability to be manufactured via SMR designs to reduce cost – Generate no long lived waste (~300 years) – Consume existing nuclear waste stockpiles – Passive (walkaway) safe I personally favour the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) design as not only can it meet the above criteria but it doesn’t contain risky components such as (liquid sodium) that is present in other next gen designs. It is also self-regulating, meaning it follows the load demand…… keep in mind the fundamentals were proven at Oak Ridge national labs in the 1960’s.

Hallam, John (21)“……The issue of nuclear power programs as a proliferation agent has not gone away … INHERENT, irreducible, safety problems with nuclear power technology that make it complex, unforgiving, and that price it out of the market. …..

The technical history of nuclear power has been a struggle between regulators and activists (with regulators increasingly captured by the industry they supposedly regulate and activists increasingly marginalised) on the one side, and the industry on the other, over precisely this safety issue. The more safety mechanisms you add to an already overly complex peice of machinery, the more costly it becomes.

Discusses safety issues and past disasters

27 Alan HewettI ws unable to open this zipped subission.
Hess, Dale (34) the proposal that Australia should adopt small modular nuclear reactors to supply its energy needs should be rejected.

I [full text here] begin by noting the 10 August 2019 Reuters report of the explosion and radiation release thought by US experts to have resulted from the testing of the nuclear-powered cruise missile in northern Russia in which a small nuclear reactor blew up killing five nuclear scientists1 .This illustrates the dangers posed and the connection between nuclear power and military applications.

The economic viability of small nuclear reactors would require mass-production and markets and governmental direct and indirect subsidies of several hundreds of billions of dollars for several decades2 . Besides economic unviability this illustrates the delay.

A secondary containment structure would be necessary to prevent the release of radioactivity in the case of a severe accident, and this increases the cost and makes small nuclear reactors unaffordable3 . Security staffing to meet a global regulatory framework will also be expensive4 .

Nuclear waste from small reactors would contain radioactive materials that could be used to make weapons. Storage of the waste at multiple sites or transporting it to a central site is problematic. Therefore because of the costs and dangers associated small nuclear reactors this option is not realistic compared to renewable energy production and storage systems.

Hill, Barrie (60)  gives an insight into just what the global nuclear lobby wants from Australia.  They want to overturn Australia’ s laws prohibiting nuclear activities, and get the tax-payer to fund the development of the nuclear industry in Australia

His submission  to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia is a fine example of the nuclear-lobby-speak that is turning up in these submissions from nuclear power experts.  He’s the Managing Director of SMR Technology………(read full analysis on link above)

Hudson , Geoffrey 37 Need for a strong pro nuclear education in Australia. The only reactors that should be considered are reprocessing reactors…..

“The time taken to get approval to build a reactor on land anywhere in Australia is so long, it is highly likely that battery technology will render the reactor unnecessary by the time it is designed and built.”

The only rapid solution is a ship borne reactor which is mass produced. The barge based power generators developed by the USSR are mentioned in the attached talk. Robotics have now advanced to the point where operation and maintenance of such a vessel could be done entirely by machines, so that no human occupancy of the vessel is required. “ 

 Hydicity (54) Basically this 21 page submission , in densely technical language simply regurgitates their submission to  SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Talks to only engineers?
“Any new fixed output generation technology only makes techno-economic sense in Australia if deployed concurrently with large scale power to fuel A systems design engineering approach to the underlying techno-economics.In short, there is now very clearly no turning back in the transition from this:
(colourful brochure from 1998)”
long technical story derived from their previous submission to  SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The submission focuses only on South Australia. “this submission does not address  the prospective market value impact of nuclear power if deployed in the eastern seaboard
of the NEM. Further, this submission does not address the capital, operating and maintenance costs of nuclear power generation if deployed anywhere.”

Krieg, Terry (61) Gives his lengthy biography and nuclear expertise. Asserts that the nuclear waste problem has been solved. Attachment – a radio talk that he gave. Says nuclear power us “kind” to the environment, that it’s affordable. Criticises renewables.

 South Australia has the world’s best high level nuclear wastedisposal site [Officer Basin]

I hope and pray that the committee will recommend in favour of nuclear power for Australia.

Maxwell,  Glenda (3) Dangers of this type of power generation far outweigh the benefits . Wastes problem . Water use. Co2 emissions are way higher than those generated by other clean energies such as wind, thermal etc. Please put $’s and research into Cleaner energies such as solar, wind, wave etc.

 McConville, Stuart (55) Advocates thorium nuclear reactors,but also renewable energy. Recommends a carbon price. Wants cradle to grave nuclear fuel cycle. Wants Australian govt to declare a climate Emergency

 McDonald, Bruce (33) Opposes nuclear power on grounds of danger, wastes, costs, terrorism risks. Alternatives – renewable energy of several types

Murphy,  Barry (12)  27 December, 2018 -prepared a short document entitled “ nuclear energy on the table — What Australians need to know “. I have used this in various areas to help explain key aspects of nuclear energy in practice, and enclose it here as part of my Submission. I hope the Committee finds this helpful : — 

Nuclear energy on the table What Australians need to know     – (Great long screed on nuclear power)….. advocates Small Modular Reactors SMRs safe. Versatile, efficient – lower upfront investment by comparison with larger units, easier to finance (doesn’t consider comparing with renewables) This can only be fully explored if the existing legal ban on nuclear power for Australia is removed. To give certainty to long-term policy, this will have to be done by means of a bipartisan agreement

Myer, Greig   (25)Hopefully this will be the final time that our elected representatives waste time and money on a form of energy that has no public support in pretty much every country on the planet. (- goes on to discuss wastes, health and safety risks, costs.  Advises to get expertise from Germany, Japan. Suggests that an Inquiry into long-term stabilisation of Australia’s energy grid and this would be a much more appropriate focus for a Parliamentary Inquiry.)  See full text at https://antinuclear.net/2019/09/07/greig-myers-fine-submission-to-inquiry-into-the-prerequisites-for-nuclear-energy-in-australia/

Myers, Paul (10) Has always been an unwavering supporter of nuclear power. Just gives no argument, but links to 2 articles. Advocates SMRS “I look forward to seeing us ditching this outdated moratorium on nuclear power generation

Nickell, Dennis (62) ”  This subject has been debated before with the outcome by both major parties to impose a moratorium on nuclear energy use. We have not gotten any further along to solving waste management, transport, storage, environmental impacts, affordability, economic feasibility,
security implications, or national consensus. In short, there has been very little progress in the case for nuclear energy. We do have a great abundance of nuclear fuel, but it must stay buried and diffuse or it will present great problems with waste, transport and all the other problems we have not solved yet and are sweeping under the carpet.
In the meantime, the case against nuclear energy has grown exponentially. We have so many great alternatives that do not produce waste that is eternally toxic! We also have one of the best countries for solar energy – lets continue down that route as it is an energy source that we can live with as it is decentralised and non toxic!
Keep the case closed to nuclear energy

Peter,  Jonathan ( 2 ) still no solution to the long radioactive life of the waste products from these facilities – dangers – These facilities use more water than any other power source

The mining and transportation of uranium, plus the construction of the nuclear power plant, etc. produce almost 3 times as much emissions as wind power

Nuclear power plants demand expensive tax-payer subsidies to get built, as private finance is hesitant to get into this  field, and will take at least 15 years to get build, which makes them irrelevant to the immediate need to cut our emissions.

Existing renewable technologies  can provide base load power.- nuclear technology outdated

Petersen, Terje (17 )  (same as his submission to NSW Inquiry)

Australia should end the blanket prohibition on the use of nuclear energy. In deciding if a reactor should be permitted in Australia then science and engineering data should drive our decision making. Not blanket ideology. …. Nuclear energy is not a dragon or a monster…minimises safety risks, radiation – recommends radiation hormesis , Recognises that nuclear is expensive – The financial risks associated with building nuclear power plants should reside principally with private investors . On costs, safety, radiation wastes – he concludes each paragraph with Nuclear energy should not be held to a higher standard than other parts of the energy sector.   ….. Nuclear is the safest way to make electricity

Price, Goronwy (35)  If Australia is going to provide its electricity 100% percent emissions free, the future is approximately 50/50 Nuclear and renewables. The province of Ontario in Canada which has a population equal to NSW and Queensland combined and is much more industrial than either has adopted a 50/50 approach. …..

(criticises solar power)  Argues that renewables need too much costly storage

Argues in favour of 3 large nuclear poewer plants, like the Hinkley Point ones in UK.

Quiggin, John (11) Seems to argue that nuclear power is not feasible now, but could be in the more distant future, provided that there is a price on carbon, and that the Australian government properly addresses climate change

“The legislative prohibition of nuclear power was a purely symbolic measure when it was introduced in the late 1990s. Removing the prohibition would be similarly, symbolic and pointlessly divisive in the absence of a policy framework with the potential to make nuclear power an economically feasible option.

Nuclear power is not viable in the absence of a carbon price . Nuclear energy generation will be economically feasible in competition with existing coal and gas generation only in the presence of a carbon price of at least $50/tonne of CO2. Optimally, a lower price should be introduced immediatelyrising in real terms over time as the date for deployment of nuclear approaches ..”

Ryan,  Terry ( 14 ) Waste management, transport and storage An issue that irrationally scares people ….. The statistics on the size of the issue show that technically it is not a major problemA nuclear waste repository could be a new export industry for Australia and could be serviced by a dedicated port facility and transport links. This would be especially suitable for declining States such as South Australia 

There are fears about the safety of nuclear electric power… There are also concerns of how costly and how long it will take to build nuclear power stations.

All these concerns can be readily addressed by informing the public of the facts and demonstrating that it is a safe, viable, economical option.   

Health and safety There is an irrational fear of any mention of radiation dosages for most of the population.   

(goes on at length about sieverts(He uses the banana example !)

A perception readily promoted by antinuclear power activists is that nuclear power is dangerous to human health, especially for workers in the industry. All economic activities have some level of risk from minimal to extremely high. The empirical evidence compared to the popular perception shows that nuclear power is the lowest risk form of power generation taking into account the entire production chain for both workers and consumers.   ….(Goes on to minimise Fukushima and Chernobyl effects)

ToR: e. Economic feasibility    (quotes Engineers Australia and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia. )  …  The debate does not need to waste time and effort in repeating the analyses already undertaken.  …. recommends SMRs

ToR: i. National consensusOn all rational criteria for investments in electricity generation in Australia under the current Australian and international policy context, nuclear generation is the best option. … Polls show that opposition to nuclear power is waning.

Savi , Paul ( 4 ) Renewables are adequate. Nuclear power connected with nuclear weapons. Dangers, Radiation health hazards . Undemocratic history of nuclear activities in Australia. Costs – need govt subsides. Problems of location – decline in property values. Too slow. Nuclear power emits three times more greenhouse gases than wind power according to the 2006 Switkowski Report.

 Smith,  Denys J ( 15) Act Now Go ahead with plans to create a nuclear waste dump in South Australia and charge the rest of the world to use one of the most geologically stable places on the planet for their nuclear waste.   

Plan ahead for a steady transition from our coal, oil and gas power plants to nuclear power plants using solar, wind and batteries as an intermediate step.  …… recommends thorium nuclear power…

on the sale of all of our uranium, our super fund managers may offer to buy it for our own use if provided some encouragement from a forward planning government .

Stephan, Adrian (64) hopes that this Inquiry will “mitigate the demonization “ of nuclear power. “The Committee should go to organisations
such as ANSTO and ARPANSA and seek those with the expertise to contribute to the  Inquiry.“   Suggests that the government build 2 research reactors, and draw on international nuclear expertise. Government should plan now for nuclear power sites, develop a trained nuclear workforce and a “trusted” Community consultative committee  , replace liquid transport fuels with electricity

Switkowski, Ziggy (41) Suggests that he would prefer to aznswer questions from the panel, rather than set out his views in this submission. He sets out advantages of nuclear power for Australia –  cheap to run, bazseload power, low greenhouse gases, Australia spacious, stable geology for wastes, recommends small modular reactors for rural areas.
He lists “challenges” to nuclear: costs to build, delay of 15 years till operating, commercial risks for the future, no economies of scale c/f wind and solar, no social licence at present, need for heavy government support, need to buy from Russia, S Korea, France, perhaps China. “the possibility of catastrophic failure within a nuclear system is nonnegligible”
No national Energy policy . Need for baseload power falling. Ziggy thinks that  Small Modular Reactors might be needed in scattered regional locations.
He wants “all obstacles to  be removed to the consideration of nuclear power as part  of the national energy strategy debate” – so the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act should be changed.  
Thompson,  Keith ( 11)(Strange and wonderful arguments) Minimises the importance of Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

nuclear power is now the cheapest and the safest means of manufacturing electric power known to man.  “ 

I believe we can further manage and reduce the residual waste cost and risk connected with the nuclear production of electric power, by creating wealthy and attractive research prizes to completely eradicate these risks.   

For example, if the Australian federal government created an all comers $10m or $100m prize that invented ways to use all existing nuclear power production waste so that there was none left, I believe that universities and private engineering businesses all over the world would be motivated to engage with the problem. Smaller subsidiary prizes for dealing with parts of that nuclear waste could be crafted to be similarly motivating. I expect that with such incentives, the waste problem could be solved within ten years but would certainly be resolved within fifty years.

The destructive effects of nuclear power. In one sense this criticism of nuclear power is the response of an ostrich to the unknown or danger. If Newton had stopped pondering gravity because it might lead to the discovery of powered flight and the loss of life in aircraft accidents, or the possibility of anti-gravity and power more destructive than that which we   are now considering, we would never have learned how to fly or otherwise stood on the shoulders of his discovery. 

Australia has a duty of comity to the rest of the nations of the world to realise its agricultural potential which could be unlocked with the production of industrial and residential water.

ThorCon US 29 The attached [on original] two-page summary outlines ThorCon benefits, technology, and costs. Substantially more information is published at ThorConPower.com. After you review this submission and published information we will gladly address your committee to take questions and provide further information

What is ThorCon? ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, then ballasted to the seabed. ThorCon has now completed the basic design of this molten salt reactor to generate ample, dispatchable, 24×7, CO2-emission-free electricity cheaper than from coal.

Cheaper than Coal. A ThorCon plant requires less of the planet’s resources than a coal plant. Assuming efficient, evidence-based regulation, ThorCon can produce clean, reliable, CO2-free electricity cheaper than coal. Visit Economics. ……Royal Commission Report. Our company previously submitted ThorCon information to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, here. Martingale is now ThorCon International. Up-to-date information is at our website ThorConPower.com.

Timmers, Heiko (63) [Mr Timmers corrects this summary, points out that he  “clearly makes the point in my submission that there is currently no business case for nuclear power in Australia.“]

BUT – the operative word is currently. He goes on to say “ we need to maintain a sustained interest in nuclear electricity generation. This is because of:…..a need to maintain a state of readiness in regard to the possibility of implementing nuclear power in Australia at some point in time. Generation IV reactor technologies are expected to become available over the next 20 years. Molten salt reactors and the thorium fuel cycle in particular offer nuclear technology advantages that may prove important and economically viable in the strategic, economic and environmental conditions that Australia may face in the future.”

[ Ed note.  Mr Timmers also has commented: “In general I find your categorization into pro and anti unhelpful. I don’t see my submission in either camp.”    I suggest that readers read his full submission on the Parliamentary website.  I stand by my conclusion that he is clearly pro nuclear, even if careful]

Suggests that  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.

Suggests that  Australia should have the full nuclear fuel cycle. Present debate is too “emotional”. Says Fukushima resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. [Mr Timmers disputes this. On re-reading his submission I must admit that he merely stated that Fukushima made people aware of the dangers]  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.

Tregeagle, Susan (43) Whilst I have recently been open to the idea that nuclear power may help us to avert these problems I am now convinced that this is not the case.
She addresses – environmental impacts, and delay – “Generation III/III+ reactors would not begin to be viable until the late 2020s.”  “issue of waste is still unsolved”  dangers of accidents.
“costs of putting into place the infrastructure for nuclear power
is unacceptably high and that other sources of power such as wind/solar and batteries are much more economically viable in the medium term”
“The only way to really test this is to put a price on carbon and not provide any subsidy to the nuclear industry.
The cost of decommissioning facilities needs to be included in your analysis.”

Tregoning, Claudia (51) concentrates on the problem of nuclear wastes. Suggests Australia’s uranium mines should take back nuclear wastes. Advocates this as the necessary step before developing nuclear power in Australia.

Tripp,  Allen (18 ) I was unable to copy his Long-winded argument in favour of nuclear power.

SUB Fed Wolfe, Gregory (45) “I do not support the use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity, there are many alternatives. It is not cost effective.

The industry remains significantly expensive to set-up, operate and more so to decommission. Based on my
research, any nuclear power station no matter how safe during operation comes to the end of life and my readings identify that in every case the Government of the day has been called on in some way to fund the cost (in part or full) of decommissioning, making safe or remediating the site, which can never be repurposed.  ie the land will remain fenced off as open space for a minimum given time. The building materials are either left onsite or transferred to a specially created landfill which again is sealed off for a given period of time. This is not a legacy I wish to leave to my children in Australia.

Recommends investment in CETO wave energy technology

Please support the continued moratorium on nuclear energy production in Australia.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: