Archive for the ‘National’ Category

ANGGUMATHANHA Aboriginal people won’t be bribed by South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission

October 4, 2015

monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns


Extract  Why we are not satisfied with the way this Royal Commission  has been conducted:  Yaiinidlha Udnyu ngawarla wanggaanggu, wanhanga Yura Ngawarla wanggaanggu?
always in English, where’s the Yura Ngawarla (our first language)?
The issues of engagement are many. To date we have found the process of engagement used by
the Royal Conuuission to be very off putting as it’s been run in a real Udnyu (whitefella) way.

The lack of an intelpreter service means we are forced to try  and engage using English (or rely on the goodwill of caring community members), and often this means we cannot be part of the engagement process. Even a Plain English summary of the four papers would have been helpful, and more opportunity for people to give oral submissions in their first language with a translator to interpret. We say that govemment and industry have a moral and ethical obligation to include us as citizens of Australia, and as Traditional Owners of our Country. We suspect that many other Australians would have benefited from a Plain English version of the papers and this was suggested by many people who went to the first lot of community meetings held by Kevin Scarce and his team. Not everyone has good English literacy.

Requiring a JP’s signature is a barrier to participation and suggests that ordinary people cannot
be trusted; not everyone has easy access to a JP, and the timeline puts pressure on people to do
this. We feel this is likely to intimidate people and discourage many from participating.We strongly recommend that the Royal Commission do more work on the following issues:

  • Provide the public with better understanding of the health, cultural, and social impacts in other
    countries of an expanding nuclear industry (including public anxiety, contaminated areas, effects 0n public health);
  • Provide adequate resources to enable all Australians to be part of an informed process – put
    people before profit;
  • The lack of advertising, and very short notice on several occasions suggests that government and
    industry and not serious about wanting to engage with public opinion and don’t value our input.
  • Many people think this suggests the proposal is ‘a done deal’ and that it will go ahead anyway.
  • Timelines are short, information is hard to access, there is no interpreter service available, and
    the meetings have been very poorly advertised.
  • Engagement opportunities need to be fair and equitable (readily available to all people) and the Native Title interest is no more important than the wider community.
  • A closed and secretive approach makes engagement difficult for the average person on the street, and near impossible for Aboriginal people to participate.
  • Government continue to use an assimilatory process; they ignore us by refusing to translate
    information into our first language, and they make no effort to understand our views in our
    languages as the First Australians. The lack of a well-thought out engagement strategy tells us that our views are not important, that government and industry will do what they want regardless of public wishes.
  • Develop a compensation package for the likely economic impacts from the negative associations of nuclear industry on local and regional economy – ego Loss of prices in crops, housing, land, as a result of contamination threats, accidents and breaches of EPA regulations;
  • Develop actual measures to counter threats from terrorist organisations re: protection to avoid nuclear site attacks, and local capacity to deal with emergency situations;
  • Tell the public what risk management plans need to be developed for communities impacted by transportation along the travel routes – for example, who will respond to a truck accident and are they equipped to deal with it; Informed awareness among communities that live along the designated travel routes so they can make decisions about their future.
  • The nuclear industry must find ways to show respect for the rights of Traditional Owners who are concerned about or opposed to the nuclear industry – monetary compensation via Native Title is not the solution – don’t insult us by simply hying to buy our consent and silence our concerns;
  • water-dropsProvide means for ongoing and independent monitoring of dangerous levels of airbome and water-based contaminants in groundwater, along transportation routes, after accidents, and among food sources used by Aboriginal people ego Nguri, urdlu and warratyi varlu, awi. We have a right to measure and monitor levels of radiation like other people do in countries such as the USA. We know from the Kakadu mine in NT that there is a major problem there with water management that is yet to be resolved.

South Australi’s Nuclear Royal Commission’s hypocrisy on renewable energy as ‘low carbon’ option

September 30, 2015

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINSouth Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission seems to be focused on electricity generation from low carbon sources, but is paying lip service only to renewable energy
The Commission is currently holding public hearings in Adelaide.  They run from 9th September through to 8th October. These hearings are devoted to 6 topics :
  1.  Climate Change and Energy Policy
  2. National Electricity Market
  3. Geology and Hydrogeology of South Australia,
  4. Low Carbon Energy Generation Options,
  5. Estimating Costs and benefits of Nuclear Activities
  6. Environmental Impact: Lessons Learnt from Past SA Practices
At the same time, the Commission is going through the submissions that it received from the public, and publishing these on its website  under 4 topic headings:
I have been laboriously reading through these submissions. The Commission’s numbering method is haphazard, as they will sometimes count one person’s numerous submission. Also they don’t publish all the submissions.  The Commission’s present total of submissions published is 454.
I counted the submissions differently, instead, just counting how many individuals and organisations put in submissions. My total is only 173, as many individuals put in several submissions.
However, there is one point on which both the Commission and I agree. The topic of greatest interest is No. 3 ELECTRICITY GENERATION. Especially in the case of submissions in favour of nuclear electricity generation, that is the most popular  topic. Many of the 94 pro nuclear submitters included that topic, while  29 of them were concerned solely with that topic. When we consider that nuclear companies did not have to have their submissions published (commercial in-confidence), we can assume that there were quite a few more of these.
At the same time, the Commission’s favourite topic for the public hearings seems to be LOW CARBON ENERGY GENERATION OPTIONS.
So I conclude that electricity generation from low carbon sources is the major theme in this Royal Commission.
I’ve also studies the speeches given by Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, both in regional meetings, and in reporting back from overseas trips. When it comes to “low carbon’ energy options, he always addresses the question of renewable energy in the same way. His stock phrase seems to be “The Commission will be looking at renewable energy”, and then returns to the nuclear subject.
But where do they look?
On their overseas trips the Commission spent much time at nuclear electricity generation locations – notably in France, at AREVA, Le Hague, and in Canada. I have yet to hear of any visit to a solar or wind generating plant.
When it comes to the public hearings, the Commission is devoting 3 days to LOW CARBON ENERGY GENERATION OPTIONS, but generally only 1 or 2 to the other topics.  These LOW CARBON hearings will be held in Adelaide on 29th September and 1st and 2nd October. The speakers will be:
  • Mr Donald Hoffman,  President and CEO of EXCEL Services Corporation, which provides specialist advice and support services to nuclear facilities in the US and internationally. Mr Hoffman served as President of the American Nuclear Society from 2013-2014. He currently provides presentations on the benefits of nuclear science and technology to the US Congress and is chairing a committee to support all the US Governors on implementing the US Clean Energy Act and addressing the Climate Control Acts.
  • Mr Andrew Stock,  director of energy companies Horizon Oil Limited and Alinta Holdings, and past director of Silex Systems, Geodynamics, Transform Solar and Australia Pacific LNG
  • Mr Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, President of the IEER and holds a Ph.D. in Engineering, specialising in nuclear fusion
  • Dr Keung Koo Kim and Dr Kyun S. Zee, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute . The Institute (KAERI) has a history of over 50 years of research and development in nuclear energy. . Dr Kim is the Director of   Advanced Reactor Development.
  • Mr Thomas Marcille, of Holtec (US)  Holtec International is an energy technology company with a focus on carbon-free power generation, specifically commercial nuclear and solar energy. Mr Marcille is Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at Holtec International and is involved in the development of Holtec’s small modular reactor, the SMR-160. He has provided nearly three decades of service in senior engineering positions in the nuclear industry in the US.
Four of these speakers are nuclear experts. The fifth,  Andrew Stock has experience in large oil and gas projects, and renewables. He and  Arjun Makhijani should provide some balance. Still, it seems to me to be well weighted in favour of new nuclear projects, and the low carbon option of renewable energy barely gets a look-in.
A while back, nuclear power was being touted as “renewable”. That was patently untrue, and the phrase went out of fashion as far as nuclear power was concerned. It seems that it has been replaced now by “low carbon”. The nuclear lobby still quite often condemns renewable energy as inadequate, as “not a base load source”, as too expensive, etc. However, nuclear promotion today is more sophisticated, and will include renewable energy, along with nuclear, as “part of the energy mix”. So “low carbon” is the preferred term for nuclear promotion, and it looks to me as if this is the way in which the Royal Commission is using that term, and paying only lip service to renewable energy. .

South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission in Coober Pedy yet again

September 25, 2015

Coober Pedy RC Sept 15 2 , Noel Wauchope The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission went to Coober Pedy again, on September 18th. John Bok, Regional Engagement Manager for the Commission was there to make a presentation about the Royal Commission. Bok stressed that he was there only to provide information about the Commission’s processes, and also that the Commission’s findings would be evidence based..

The meeting was held in a somewhat noisy atmosphere, at the Italian club, and Bok had a bit of trouble with the sound, at some stages. Some of the questions put to him were not easily audible, which was  a pity. as amongst the  attendees were  Sr Michele Madigan and members of the Kunga-Tjuta survivors of the British government’s atomic testing in the 1950s and 60s.
According to Jon Bok, the current series of public hearings, in Adelaide, and selected regional sites, will be informed by experts.  I couldn’t help wondering if any of those “experts” had any idea of the kind of expertise of those Aboriginal women. Earlier this year, upon hearing about the waste dump proposal, the group issued this statement:

We are the Aboriginal Women. Yankunytjatjara, Antikarinya and Kokatha. We know the country. The poison the Government is talking about will poison the land. We say, “No radioactive dump in our ngura – in our country. It’s strictly poison, we don’t want it.”

Mr Bok carried out his brief, setting out the procedures for the Royal Commission’s examination of submissions, public hearings, report writing, and eventual recommendations to the State Government.  The stock phrases of the Commission flowed fast  – risks and opportunities, evidence based – look at feasibility and viability – community consent based…. The Commission will report on feedback from communities and submissions, but these may be only communications based not evidence based. One person commented that then there’s no point, really – a one way communication. Which is pretty much my own assessment of what is really going on.
Bok’s mention of the Commission’s overseas visits was revealing more by what was omitted than anything else.  They went to France (jn fact they spent four days there, mainly with AREVA, at the exact time that this nuclear giant company was being dismantled by the French government, in order to avoid bankruptcy.) Of course, Bok didn’t mention AREVA’s disaster. Still he did shed some light on the financial realities of nuclear reprocessing at Le Hague. Bok said:
Reprocessing  takes some of the spent nuclear fuel, and processes it so that some of it can be used in nuclear reactors. But it uses only some. Even after reprocessing there is still some radioactive waste to be dealt with. At the moment it is expensive to reprocess. Many countries find it too expensive.
Mr Bok went on to discuss Commissioner Kevin Scarce’s visit to Fukushima., with the aim of trying to learn any lessons from the nuclear accident there. The take home message from Fukushima was that different engineering would have had  a different outcome. 
The reassuring message on nuclear reactors was that there are new designs, additional safeguards, and Bok gave an example of a new American design that will have water tanks included in it.
Kevin Scarce went to Canada for a comparison, and Bok stressed the similarities of Australian and Canadian conditions. He didn’t mention the notorious corruption in the Canadian nuclear industry, back in the news only today.
Scarce didn’t visit Chernobyl. And he didn’t visit any renewable energy centres.
I’m not very reassured by the Regional Engagemnet Manager’s account of the processes of the Nuclear Royal Commission.  Too many comfortable cliches about community involvement etc.  And a subtle underlying theme of the global nuclear lobby. We are not to think of nuclear waste as radioactive trash. No, it’s supposed to be a useful resource. As Jon Bok said, referring to Finland’s deep nuclear waste tomb:
 There is a thought in the broader nuclear energy community that at some time in the future we might be able to unlock the energy of these wastes … the take home message on waste storage – it’s not so much a technical issue as one of community consensus
At one point in his speech, Jon Bok did mention that renewable technology is moving so quickly that there may be no need for nuclear power.
With all its connections to the nuclear lobby, it is doubtful that the Royal Commission will come to that conclusion, even though South Australia is already  a world leader in renewable energy. But circumstances might just force them to accept that conclusion. The Aboriginal Women. Yankunytjatjara, Antikarinya and Kokatha won the nuclear waste dump battle last time. My money’s on them again.

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Law and Culture – a decisive NO to nuclear South Australia

September 25, 2015

Anangu Pitjantjatjara etc

APY LAW & CULTURE – CONCERNS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE, Coober Pedy Regional Times, 24 Sept 15,  Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Law and Culture is declaring its intention to move away from the APY Administration. For a long time our committee has been worried about the direction the APY Administration is taking.

On several occasions we have been told Law and Culture is a side committee, that it is second to the APY.

Law and Culture comes first. It always has. The administration needs to understand this. All Anangu know that our Law and Culture comes first, our Law and Culture must be at the heart of decision making. We have decided to stand alone. Our Law and Culture will come first. Our lives depend on it. We will source alternate funding.

One of our big concerns is the Royal Commission into Nuclear Energy. Law and Culture says no to APY Lands being used to mine uranium or dump the waste.

We won’t be silenced on this. We won’t be bought. This is our land. We do not want nuclear anything on our Land. Murray George, Chairman, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Law and Culture

CANDU nuclear reactors can’t do for South Australia- John Quiggin at #NuclearCommissionSAust

September 25, 2015
Quiggin, John
COMMISSIONER: You dismiss the CANDU reactor?
PROF QUIGGIN: I can’t see that there are going to be any significant number. There are none under construction right now, to the best of my knowledge. So I can’t see how by 2025 we would have any scope……..


Prof Quiggan: “……..I think we’ll go back to carbon pricing and we’ll go down essentially a renewable (indistinct) perhaps already well-established industry. With popular acceptance – there’s obviously a little bit of objection to wind but broad 40 popular acceptance and essentially all we need is the price signal and some policy certainty and that’s the path we’ll take……..

 Social licence is part of it but I think that focuses too narrowly on the kind of what might be called the 35 NIMBY objections of people who don’t want nuclear power stations next door. Processes simply like setting up a regulatory framework are very complicated. If we look at – even assuming that there was general popular goodwill out there, we still have to have the procedure of selecting sites.
That’s something that hasn’t been done in the Western world for many decades. All the existing 40 power plants being built in the US are being built on brownfield sites next to existing nuclear power stations. So we have to have a procedure of some kind to select locations and design procedures, finding the people to do it, setting up all the things that need to be 45 thought about with a nuclear power station. That’s inevitably going to take a great deal of time, even assuming popular goodwill, which of course is a pretty heroic assumption…….
I think the majority view will be that renewables can do the job and should do the job. I think it will be hard to persuade a large proportion of the population that nuclear is superior to 10 renewables ………
if we look at the US nuclear renaissance program they were starting in 20 2002, hoping to have plants online by 2012, and a lot of them instead will be lucky to get four plants online by 2020. That’s without any significant element of protest. There hasn’t, as far as I’m aware, been any public protests of any significance at the nuclear power plants that are under construction in the US. Obviously concerns have been expressed about the regulation process but there 25 haven’t been activist protestors. Nonetheless, a process that was supposed to take 10 years has taken 20……….
 French nuclear power plants have become more and more expensive. The Flamanville plant is way overdue among other things, and this certainly is obviously going to be an issue in the Australian context. ……..
COMMISSIONER: You dismiss the CANDU reactor?
PROF QUIGGIN: I can’t see that there are going to be any significant number. There are none under construction right now, to the best of my knowledge. So I can’t see how by 2025 we would have any scope……..
We’ve seen substantial cutbacks in the renewable sector. Simply by bringing back to where it was two 15 or three years ago, we could substantially accelerate the process of transition. ……….
Obviously, the first thing to do would be change the pricing structures. If we are relying substantially on solar power, for example, we want to tell people to 10 heat their hot water up in the day time and not at night time when there’s excess power. Looking at pricing policies more generally as part of the story, we can look at storage, we can look at gas peaking, and, finally, we can look at expanding the (indistinct) so that we spread the load more generally……
– if we look at nuclear as an economic option, we’ve only really seen one well established success in the 1970s, one potential success, China now. We may see some others but everywhere else either the economics 35 has been bad or, as we’ve seen in the Soviet Union, the economics look good until you took account of the failure to put in the necessary safety procedures. ..

Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust shows superiority of renewable energy over nuclear

September 23, 2015

submission goodfrom Rebecca Keane I am astonished that South Australia is even being considered as a site for nuclear power plants and/or radioactive waste dumps. Australia’s rapid and widespread progress in the harnessing of our virtually unlimited solar energy resource is evident in the fact that currently 1.4 million households have rooftop solar installations!. The huge potential for expansion in this field negates any need for the pursuit of such a highly dangerous enterprise as nuclear power generation.

Solar thermal energy supply, where solar energy is stored as heat is also highly efficient and offers
tremendous opportunities in this country. Moreover, our nation’s geographical conditions are extremely favourable to the massive development of other renewable sources such as wind, hydro and wave power. Wind energy is emerging as a highly cost-effective resource and vertical axis wind turbines are particularly effective and create no noise issues.

The West Australian coast is subject to the world’s strongest wind system (The Roaring Forties) with the energy released each year from the pounding of the waves influenced by this system, equating to five times Australia’s annual total energy usage2. Over 85% of Australians live in close proximity to the
A combination of the utilisation ofrenewable intermittent sources such as solar, wind
and wave energy with back-up hydro and gas-driven turbines is recognized by experts throughout the world as being highly comparable in terms of both adequacy and reliability of supply, to existing coal-driven technology. Over 24,000 people are employed in Australia’s renewable energy industries compared to 10,000 in coalmining for the domestic market 3

There is a huge opportunity for boosting employment in Australia in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of equipment for renewable energy generation. By comparison nuclear power plants are
relatively low labour intensive operations.

If we were to establish a radioactive dump here for worldwide waste as is being considered we would be letting other nations off the hook in terms of exploring and exploiting safe energy options-out of sight, out of mind.
At the community consultation session I attended at Uni SA, Mawson Lakes (19 May2015), Kevin Scarce branded Finland’s nuclear industry as ‘world’s best practice’. In 2008, only three years prior to the Fukushima disaster, the International Energy Agency said the same about Japan’s nuclear technology branding it as ‘state of the art’ and a model for all others to follow  I do not think this would bring any comfort
to the 54,530 children of the Fukushima region (and their families) who have now
been discovered to have potentially cancerous thyroid abnormalities5
. The plant
1 Professor M. Diesendorf, University ofNew South Wales, radio interview with Rod Quinn ABC
Local, 17 July 2015
2 C Smith, The Science Show, ABC Radio National, 24 June 2015
3 Professor M. Diesendorf, University ofNew South Wales, radio interview with Rod Quinn ABC
Local, 17 July 2015
4 Energy Policies o/1.E.A.Countries, Japan 2008 Review,
https://www.iea.orglpublications/freepublications/publication/Japan2008.pdf, accessed 1 July 2015
5 C Perrow, Fukushima Forever, The World Post,
fukushima-forever b 3941589.html, accessed 1 July 2015

Australia gets yet another nuclear stooge as Resources Minister

September 23, 2015

Frydenburg, Josh

Turnbull appoints a nuclear fan to head energy policy REneweconomy, By  on 21 September 2015 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has appointed a strong advocate of nuclear energy in the key resources and energy portfolio as part of sweeping changes to his cabinet and ministry.

Josh Frydenberg, an ally of Tony Abbott who was previously assistant Treasurer, has been named as minister for resources, energy and northern Australia, as part of a reshuffle that sees the portfolio split from industry, innovation and science, which goes to former eduation minister Chris Pyne.

Greg Hunt retains his spot as environment minister, to continue his bluster around Direct Action as a result of Turnbull’s pact with the Liberal Party’s far right wing, and Turnbull has also appointed Jamie Briggs to be Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, in an appointment welcomed by the Green Building Council and others…………..

Frydenberg also has strong views on energy, and in particularly nuclear energy. He made it one of his three major issues when he made his maiden speech to parliament in October, 2010, and then made a series of speeches and articles pushing the technology.

In The Australian newspaper in early 2011, Frydenberg said nuclear was safe and cheap, and expected that sometime soon nuclear plants could likely be constructed within 2 ½ years. He also quoted nuclear advocate Ziggy Switkowski as saying that Australia could be 90 per cent powered by nuclear energy by 2050.

That article appeared in late January, 2011, just six weeks before the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Frydenberg hasn’t had much to say about nuclear energy since then, and indeed appears to have made no reference to it in any speeches posted on his website. He has, though, praised shale gas, and in that doesn’t differ much from his predecessor……….

The market has changed remarkably since that time. Solar energy has transformed the outlook for global energy markets, and Australia’s in particular, and battery storage will hasten that transition.

Most major energy companies, and indeed grid operators in countries like the UK, say large centralized generators will become a thing of the past. The future is seen as one based around decentralised energy, with flexibility the key. The biggest utilities in Europe and the US are separating their fossil fuel interests to focus on renewables.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is being priced out of the market in all but those countries with central command and controls. In the US, even nuclear power stations built decades ago can no longer compete with renewables and gas, and the handful of plants being built in the US and Europe are already running well over budget, and taking years longer than planned. Even France is slashing its nuclear share by one third due to soaring costs.

In an interview with ABC Radio National on Monday morning, it was difficult to get a sense of any of that change, nor was there any sense that Frydenberg had grasped the key tenet of the Turnbull platform, about embracing the future rather than the past.

Frydenberg simply repeated the Abbott-government era chants about energy – that cutting of the renewable energy target to 33,000GWh from 41,000GWh was an “outstanding result”, and how Australia has huge opportunities to lift its energy exports to an energy hungry world.

OK, so it’s his first day on the job. But Frydenberg will soon find – if he has honest advisors within the department – that it is no longer as simple as that. China and India are winding back imports of thermal coal, and may even stop them altogether by the end of the decade…….

that’s not to say Frydenberg and those with his views are not for changing. WA energy minister Mike Nahan, a climate change doubting, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables head of the Institte of Public Affairs, now recognises that the future of energy will be centred around solar and distributed energy. And he is scathing of slow moving regulators.……


Electrical Trades Union – another great submision to #NuclearCommissionSAust

September 21, 2015
submission goodElectrical Trades Union,  Graham Glover Submission to  South Australian Government Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

Extract .”……..‘Generation IV’ technologies are the fast breeder reactor, the integral fast reactor, the thorium reactor and the small modular reactor.
Because the fast breeder and integral fast reactors can ‘breed’ more nuclear fuel, in the form of plutomium-239, than they consume, their use could significantly reduce uranium mining and hence the carbon dioxide emissions from mining and milling.
But they are even more complex, expensive, dangerous and conducive to proliferation compared to older nuclear reactors. Despite several decades of pilot and demonstration plants, these technologies have not been successfully commercialised and may never be.
Nuclear proponents try to justify the integral fact reactor and the thorium reactor on the fallacious grounds that they cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons explosives. However, if not used according to instructions by governments that control it, the integral fast reactors can actually make it easier to extract weapons-grade plutonium.
Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, but to be useful as a nuclear fuel, thorium has to be converted to uranium-233, which can be fissioned either in a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb.ButThe small modular reactor has been a dream of the nuclear industry for decades, which hopes that mass production could make its electricity cheaper than from existing large reactors. However, offsetting this is the latter’s economy of scale. The Union of Concerned Scientists has serious safety and security concerns about small modular reactors.
Without even considering safety issues, there are a number of problems with nuclear power.
Firstly, it is expensive and relatively inefficient. The cost of building reactors is enormous and the price of subsequently decommissioning them also huge. Without massive government subsidy the nuclear industry cannot make money and building new plants is uneconomic compared to other methods of power generation.
Nuclear advocates often publish highly optimistic projections of the future cost of energy from nuclear reactors. However, past and present experience suggests that such projection have little basis in reality.
Apart from ‘new’ reactors mentioned earlier, which are not commercially available and hence cannot be costed credibly, the much touted current power reactors under construction (none are operating) are classified as Generation III+.
Two Generation III+ reactors are under construction in Europe, two in the USA and several in China. In Finland, Olkiluoto-3 is nearly a decade behind schedule and nearly three times budgeted cost; in France, Flamanville-3 is five years behind schedule and double budgeted cost; in Georgia USA, Vogtie is three years behind schedule.
The proposed new Hinkley C in the UK will receive a guaranteed inflation-linked price for electricity over 35 years, commencing at 9.25 p/kWh (about 18 AU c/kWh), double the typical wholesale price of electricity in the UK and over three times Australia’s; it will also receive huge loan guarantees and insurance backed by the British taxpayer.
For comparison, wind energy is around 8–10 c/kWh in certain sites in Australia and about half this at some sites in the USA. USA based SunEdison has contracted to supply electricity from a large solar power station in Chile in 2016 for the record low price of US 9 c/kWh. Both solar and wind are still becoming cheaper as their markets grow. [table here on original]
…….the costs per kWh of subsidieshelp make coal and oil and nuclear seem more economically competitive than they actually are as compared to renewables……
Clearly nuclear energy is an issue of national import. Australians around the country would be directly or indirectly impacted by the decision of any state to expand any element of the nuclear industry. This is particularly true of storage, enrichment and generation.
We submit that any state based inquiry and subsequent findings. Irrespective of the fact that it may be advice solely to the requesting state government, can be viewed as fundamentally flawed and manifestly lacking on that basis alone.
There have been numerous previous inquires, commissions, studies and reports into the nuclear industry in Australia which have culminated in the laws that we currently have. Expansion of Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle, with the exception of uranium mining and milling, is currently prohibited under section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (Cth) and repeated in section 140 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
We’ve already had the nuclear debate in Australia and the result was, unequivocally, that the vast majority, including South Australians, are against it. Why do it again at taxpayer expense?
The disadvantages of nuclear power include investment and financing risks, long construction times, persistently negative perceptions, especially regarding the long-term safety of nuclear waste disposal, and a possibility of accidents releasing harmful radiation. There is also a need to provide expensive specialist regulatory agencies and detailed safety regimes.
It is simply not necessary to even go down that path in Australia, particularly South Australia with abundant solar and wind, where we have an embarrassment of riches in safe alternatives be they renewable or traditional energy fuels.
It is our view that no matter how improved nuclear technology may be, the main risks of human error, natural disasters, terrorism and the unresolved question of long term nuclear waste storage condemns nuclear reactors and power as having unsolvable factors which make this form of energy production not worth the risk

Adelaide Hills suitable for nuclear reactor ! #NuclearCommissionSAust

September 19, 2015

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINNuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission hears Adelaide Hills site earmarked as suitable for nuclear reactor September 18, 2015   CHIEF REPORTER Paul Starick The Advertiser SITES in the Adelaide Hills and Port Augusta have been earmarked as suitable for a nuclear power plant should one be built in South Australia, a royal commission has heard.

The operator of the state’s high-voltage electricity network said the existing power station site at Port Augusta, which is slated for closure, would be suitable for a nuclear reactor.

ElectraNet executive manager asset management Rainer Korte also said this was among four suitable sites in the network – the others in Adelaide and the Hills. Those in Adelaide were unlikely to be used for a nuclear power plant, he said.

Mr Korte was responding to a question by Chad Jacobi, counsel assisting the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, about where a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant could be connected to the SA electricity network. He said: “One of them is at Davenport, which is near Port Augusta, which is where essentially the current northern power station is connected.

“The other two are in Adelaide, in the Adelaide metropolitan area where you arenot likely to see any major development of a power station for environmental reasons and others.

 “And then Tungkillo, which is in the Adelaide Hills, is also a very strong connection point on our network, where . . . we estimate you could inject up to about 1000 megawatts.”

The royal commission, headed by former governor Kevin Scarce, is conducting public sessions to inform a final report due by May next year. It is investigating the potential for SA to be involved in nuclear power, waste storage, enrichment and further exploration and milling.

An Adelaide Hills site described as in the Mt Lofty Ranges or just east was previously identified as a possible place for a nuclear reactor in a 1997 federal Cabinet submission, leaked in 2006. Sites at Woomera and Olympic Dam also were among 14 places across Australia detailed in the submission, prepared for then science minister Peter McGauran.

In other royal commission evidence on Friday afternoon, SA Power Networks senior manager Mark Vincent said forecasts predicted solar energy would be used by two-thirds of SA households in about 20 years. In the same period, it was predicted about 100,000 electric cars would be using SA roads – for which Premier Jay Weatherill is planning new road laws.

Traditional Aboriginal Landowners, and Others Who Care, Complete The Walkatjurra Walkabout

September 19, 2015

heartland-1 16 Sep 15: “The Walkatjurra Walkabout, which started in 2011,  finished its 5th walk in the North Eastern Goldfields town  of Leonora on Tuesday. The walk, a collaboration of Aboriginal and non-indigenous people, is a moving community  protest against the proposed uranium mines in the region.

The month long walk, lead by local Traditional Owners,  covered almost 450 km’s from Wiluna to Leonora, passing  Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium mine proposal at Lake Way and Cameco’s proposed uranium mine at Yeelirrie Station.  Walk participants included local Traditional Owners, people
from Australia, Japan, Taiwan, England, Sweden, Aotearoa (New Zealand), America and France.

The walks continue to attract people interested in learning about Aboriginal culture, caring for country and to share a united vision for a nuclear free world.

greensSmThe walk was also joined at Yeelirrie for two days by Federal Greens senators Rachel Siewert and Co-Deputy Greens leader Scott Ludlam along with state Greens MLC Robin Chapple.

The visit included a tour of Toro Energy’s uranium project at Lake Way near Wiluna with walkers and Toro Energy. Many of the participants have first hand experience of the
dangers of the nuclear industry, especially those from Japan and Taiwan, whose nuclear industry are fuelled by Australian uranium. … “


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 704 other followers