Author: Jim.Green

Dutton’s nuclear power plan will increase taxes AND power bills

These news items (and updates) posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/dutton-nuclear-economics/

* ACF ‘Power Games’ report

* CSIRO GenCost report, May 2024

* Levelised cost of electricity review (Egis / Clean Energy Council)

* Lazard investment firm, LCOE+, June 2024

* Nuclear/SMR economics in a high-renewables grid

* Nuclear is unviable because of economics, not engineering

* Power bills could rise by $1,000 a year under Coalition plan to boost gas until nuclear is ready, analysts say

* Nuclear power would cost households $200 more per year, Rod Sims claims

* Coalition’s taxpayer-funded nuclear con a road to ruin

* Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost up to $600 billion, deliver less than four pct of grid, industry body says

——————>

ACF ‘Power Games’ report:

* Comparing costs of large reactors in the UK and US, and SMR cost estimates, with CSIRO estimates for firmed renewables, nuclear costs (large or small) would need to come down by two-thirds to be competitive with firmed renewables.

* Replacing Australia’s 21.3 gigawatts of coal plants with nuclear, large or small, would cost $500 billion to $650 billion (and much more to train a nuclear workforce etc. etc.)

——————>

CSIRO GenCost report, May 2024

Levelised costs:

	2023 ($/MWh)	2030 ($/MWh)
Large-scale nuclear	155-252	141-233
SMR	387-641	230-382
90% wind and solar PV supply to the National Electricity Market including storage and transmission costs	100-143	89-128

——————>

Levelised cost of electricity review

A report prepared for the Clean Energy Council by Egis, a leading global consulting, construction and engineering firm. May 2024.

Key findings:

1. The research confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity.
2. The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.
3. Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available.
4. The economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid, in line with legislated targets. Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.

——————>

Lazard investment firm, LCOE+, June 2024

Includes these levelised cost figures (amongst others):

	US$/MWh (A$/MWh)
Solar PV – Utility	29-92 (44-138)
Solar PV + storage – Utility	60-210 (90-315)
Wind ‒ onshore	27-72 (41-108)
Wind + storage ‒ onshore	45-133 (67-199)
Wind ‒ offshore	74-139 (111-208)
Nuclear	142-222 (213-333)

The nuclear cost is based on the Vogtle project in Georgia (the only nuclear project to begin and reach completion this century), assuming a capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60–80 years.

——————>

Nuclear/SMR economics in a high-renewables grid

Apart from the practical constraints (not least the fact that they don’t exist), the economics of SMRs would go from bad to worse if using them to complement renewables. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, power from an SMR with a utilisation factor of 25% would cost around A$600 per megawatt-hour (MWh).

Likewise, an article co-authored by Steven Hamilton – assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and visiting fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the ANU – states:

“Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Labor sees nuclear power as a competitor to renewables. The Coalition sees nuclear power as a companion to renewables”.

“The trouble is that nuclear is a terrible companion to renewables. The defining characteristic of being “compatible” with renewables is the ability to scale up and down as needed to “firm” renewables.

“Even if we don’t build a single new wind farm, in order to replace coal in firming renewables, nuclear would need to operate at around 60 per cent average utilisation (like coal today) to keep capacity in reserve for peak demand. This alone would push the cost of nuclear beyond $225/MWh. To replace gas as well, the cost skyrockets beyond $340/MWh.”

——————>

Nuclear is unviable because of economics, not engineering

Even if all that mattered was the cheapest possible energy that meets minimum levels of reliability and emissions, the Coalition’s plan fails.

June 23, 2024, Australian Financial Review, Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney

…

The numbers don’t stack up for nuclear

The CSIRO estimates the cost of 90 per cent renewables, with firming, transmission, and integration costs included, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on South Korean costs (roughly one-third of the US and Europe), a 60-year lifespan, a 60 per cent economic utilisation rate (as per coal today), and an eight-year build time (as per the global average), nuclear would cost $200 per megawatt hour – nearly double.

The same electrons delivered with the same reliability, just twice as expensive under what is a fairly optimistic scenario.

Opposition climate and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has raised two issues with the CSIRO’s assumptions for nuclear: first, lifespan (Ted says it should be 80 years); second, utilisation (Ted says it should be close to 100 per cent).

His first concern makes little difference. Thanks to the time value of money, extending the lifespan from 60 to 80 years reduces the cost above by just $4 per megawatt hour – or 2 per cent. His second concern misunderstands the Australian energy market.

Because the vast majority of nuclear costs are up-front capital, utilisation has a dramatic effect on economic viability. Even if nuclear were to supply 100 per cent of electricity, utilisation would not be 100 per cent because demand varies dramatically.

In France, where nuclear accounts for most of the supply, utilisation is just 70 per cent —and that’s with a big boost to utilisation as energy can be exported to countries to its east and west, which plainly Australia could not do.

Underutilisation then gets even worse as the supply of renewables increases. When competing with zero-marginal-cost renewables, nuclear must either decrease output (thus utilisation) or supply at negative prices (reducing economic viability, as with coal today).

Renewables already routinely produce more than half our electricity during the day and AEMO expects average renewables output to exceed 95 per cent (and up to 100 per cent at times) by 2035, when the Opposition plans the first nuclear plant to come online. In that environment, even the 70 per cent achieved in France would be wildly optimistic.

The same electrons delivered with the same reliability, just twice as expensive under what is a fairly optimistic scenario.

It’s worth noting that, even at 93 per cent utilisation (the highest ever achieved in the US where nuclear is a small share of supply), nuclear is still 25 per cent more expensive than renewables.

This is also where the opposition’s claim that nuclear will ensure system reliability falls apart. For nuclear, the goals of reliability and viability are fundamentally opposed. To bring nuclear closer to economic viability, it must play a minor role in the system to consistently run at full capacity, with nothing more to give when called upon.

A genuine reliability solution should be available when needed at minimum cost. Today, that means gas, batteries and pumped hydro. In 2050, it could also mean small modular nuclear reactors. But we have a quarter-century to wait and see if they become economically viable.

Are there uncertainties around the cost of firmed renewables? Independent analysis by Lazard and peer-reviewed academic research produce similar estimates to the CSIRO. We must make decisions today based on our best guess of the costs. But any concerns about delays, social license and cost blowouts are surely even greater under nuclear, and it starts at a 100% cost disadvantage before these even enter the picture.

If you need external validation of these basic economics, look no further than the opposition’s own announcement. Rather than lift the moratorium and allow private firms to supply nuclear energy if it’s commercially viable, the opposition has opted for government to be the owner and operator. A smoking gun of economic unviability if ever there were one.

In the face of an intractable productivity crisis, in which we must take every 10th of a percentage point of GDP we can get, choosing to pay more for electricity for no benefit whatsoever is unacceptable self-harm.

In these circumstances, the pragmatist should view the opposition’s plan as nothing more than a vanity project our economy cannot afford.

— Steven Hamilton is an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and Luke Heeney is a graduate researcher at the MIT Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

——————>

Power bills could rise by $1,000 a year under Coalition plan to boost gas until nuclear is ready, analysts say

Experts predict major electricity price hikes if opposition proposal to slow rollout of large-scale renewable projects goes ahead

Adam Morton and Paul Karp, 21 June 2024, The Guardian

Australians’ annual household power bills could increase by hundreds of dollars, and up to $1,000, under a Coalition plan to slow the rollout of large-scale renewable energy and use more gas-fired electricity before nuclear plants are ready, analysts say.

Few details of the opposition’s proposal have been released, but Dutton told a press conference on Wednesday that the Coalition would restrict investment in solar and windfarms and cover the electricity shortfall created as old coal-fired plants shut over the next two decades by using more gas power.

Analysts said gas was a far more expensive power source in the national grid than renewable energy or coal, and opening new gas basins was unlikely to change this as the country’s cheap gas had already been extracted. They said adding more gas power could also increase greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating the climate crisis.

Tristan Edis, a director with the firm Green Energy Markets, said the wholesale electricity price was set by the most expensive fuel being used at any given time. Those prices were “very high” – between $250 and $300 per megawatt hour of electricity, about three times the average price – whenever fast-start gas plants were used to complement cheaper coal, solar, wind and hydro energy.

Gas now provides less than 5% of electricity in the national electricity market, and is only called on when needed to meet demand.

Edis said if a Coalition government put a hold on investment in solar and windfarms and boosted gas power so that it was replacing coal and always setting the price, “you’re talking about an increase of $500 to potentially even $1,000 per annum for a household power bill”.

Dr Roger Dargaville, an associate professor and the interim director of the Monash Energy Institute, said it was difficult to predict what the Coalition’s announcement would mean for bills due to a lack of detail, but agreed the increase in an annual bill could be $1,000.

“It seems the options being presented will either lead to extraordinary maintenance bills to keep old coal plants going or using a lot more gas,” he said. “Coal is a very cheap fuel, so if you’re going from a coal-dominated system to a gas-dominated system, you are going to see very steep energy prices.”

Dargaville said more renewable energy backed by “firming” support – including energy storage, new transmission lines and gas power only when required – was “the only sensible option and almost certainly the least cost option”. …

On Friday the progressive thinktank the Australia Institute released the results of a survey of 1,005 Australians that it commissioned from the firm Dynata in May. It found nearly two-thirds (65%) said they were not prepared to pay extra to have nuclear power in the mix. …

——————>

Nuclear power would cost households $200 more per year, Rod Sims claims

The former ACCC chief Rod Sims, who now chairs the renewables thinktank the Superpower Institute, has told ABC radio that nuclear power will increase household power bills:

“I think at best it would probably increase household energy costs by well over $200 per annum. That’s at best.

“And let me just unpick that if I could. So at the moment, if you want to use wind and solar, that’s about $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. If you want to firm that up, which we do because we want it completely reliable, that would cost about $110 a megawatt hour give or take a bit, and you’d be using solar wind up, using hydro pumped hydro gas batteries, so a whole mix of things. And it would be 100% reliable at a cost of give or take $110 a megawatt hour.

“If you use nuclear, and you look at the most recent new-build plants around Europe, the UK the US, you are talking at least between 2 [200] and $300 per megawatt hour.”

——————>

Coalition’s taxpayer-funded nuclear con a road to ruin

Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 25 June 2024, Australian Financial Review

We now know that if the federal opposition wins the next election, it proposes to gouge Australians to bankroll a national build-out of government-owned nuclear reactors across seven locations – because private capital won’t touch nuclear.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s fact-free, 900-word press release on the topic – the totality of the Coalition’s policy announcement – failed to produce costings for what would be a long-term, multibillion-dollar “nuke builder” tax. We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion, but likely considerably more given the international experience.

It beggars belief that the alternative government proposes nationalising an uncosted nuclear debt bomb and detonating it at the heart of domestic energy and climate policy.

Meanwhile, momentum has been accelerating into firmed renewables, as capital responds to the decarbonisation ambition of the Albanese government.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen this week announced that the first tranche of six gigawatts of new capacity under his centrepiece Capacity Investment Scheme was oversubscribed nearly seven-fold, with 40GW of tenders for firmed renewables in the pipeline.

Dutton, by contrast, centres nuclear in Australian energy policy against the unequivocal advice of the CSIRO, which warned that nuclear could not be operational until 2040 at the earliest, and the energy generated would be two to four times as expensive as fully firmed renewables.
Our national scientific agency says nuclear “won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050”.

The LNP’s nuclear con is essentially an egregious exercise in bad faith, designed to disrupt and delay the firmed renewables rollout.

The CSIRO’s assessment is justified by a cursory examination of nuclear deployments in Western economies. The Vogtle nuclear plant expansion debacle in Georgia, in the US, completed seven years late in 2023, is the most expensive public works project in US history at $US35 billion ($52.6 billion), with consumers carrying the can for the runaway costs.
England’s Hinkley Point C plant – started in 2016, with completion now delayed to 2031 – is an $88 billion millstone around citizens’ necks for the next 60 years.

In Canada, which opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien admiringly cites, the last nuclear plant was approved in 1977 and commissioned 15 years later in 1993, five years late. The original capital cost of $C3.9 billion blew out 400 per cent to $C14.4 billion, including a $C600 million refurbishment immediately on commissioning, and it now needs another $C12 billion ($13.2 billion) refurbishment.
The Coalition’s government-owned nuclear scheme emulates its great public infrastructure debacles – Snowy 2.0 and the NBN. Snowy 2.0 was due in 2021 at a cost of $2 billion. After a rolling series of crises, it’s now expected to come online after 2028 and cost $15 billion.

Dutton’s assertion that nuclear could be operational here in 2035-37 is fanciful. Community opposition, inevitable legal challenges, absence of development pipeline in a country with zero history of nuclear energy, and legislative bans make this impossible.
Critically, the Clean Energy Investor Group, which includes global investment giant BlackRock, Neoen and Macquarie, has condemned the Coalition’s “catastrophic” intervention, saying it puts at imminent risk the influx of private capital investment into Australian decarbonisation, as policy uncertainty destroys investor confidence and makes clean energy proposals uninvestable. This creates sovereign risk as it undermines our energy security.

The medium-term energy price implications are horrendous. Prices would skyrocket as private investment in new zero emissions replacement capacity is crowded out, resulting in undersupply for the next 15 to 25 years while we wait for the LNP’s nuclear white elephants to lumber into view, locking in higher power bills for consumers crushed by cost of living, and for domestic industry, reducing competitiveness.

In short, while nuclear may be part of the energy mix in some countries with a long-established history of deploying the technology – in Canada, for example, it was 14 per cent of total generation in 2023 (down from 16 per cent a decade ago), while renewables are 65 per cent and increasing – it is simply not viable here.

The LNP’s nuclear con is essentially an egregious exercise in bad faith, designed to disrupt and delay the firmed renewables rollout and entrench decades more of volatile, hyper-inflated fossil fuel energy for perceived political, donor and electoral advantage, even as the climate crisis escalates.

This is consistent with Dutton’s retreat from our 43 per cent by 2030 emissions reduction target, trashing our Paris Agreement commitments and exposing the Coalition’s unreconstructed climate denialism.

Firmed renewables can deliver secure, reliable and affordable supply at a fraction of the cost, as the CSIRO confirmed. We need to speed the rollout, as the Albanese government is doing, including making material progress on establishing huge offshore wind zones in Victoria and NSW, complementing the firmed renewables investment boost under the Capacity Investment Scheme.

By contrast, the Coalition’s nuclear road to ruin is a betrayal of the national interest – economic and fiscal vandalism on an epic scale and rank political opportunism.

——————>

Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost up to $600 billion, deliver less than four pct of grid, industry body says

Samantha Lock, AAP, 23 June 2024

The cost of building seven reactors under Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal could be up to $600 billion and “at best” deliver just 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy mix in 2050, an industry body says.

The coalition has pledged to build the nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired power stations if it wins government at the next election.

The costs and details of the plans have remained scant, prompting concerns about safety in regional areas where the reactors are due to be built and the drawn-out 2035 completion date for construction of the first facility.

Using data from the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan, the Smart Energy Council estimated the cost to taxpayers to be at least $116 billion.

The cost is the same as delivering 82 per cent renewables by 2030, and an almost 100 per cent renewable energy mix by 2050, including the cost of building all of the enabling transmission infrastructure, the council said.

Under the operator’s forecast, the total expenditure required to fund all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure was found to have a 2024-dollar value of $121 billion, to be invested gradually out to 2050.

The bulk of the $121 billion would be invested by the private sector between now and 2050 to deliver about 300 gigawatts of capacity by 2050.

These figures compare to just 11 gigawatts of nuclear capacity funded by the taxpayer in the opposition’s proposal, the council said.

Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver “at best” 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.

“In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,” he said.

Mr Grimes said nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage.

“The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,” he said.

The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites. 

“They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,” Mr Grimes said.

“It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.” 

(See also Smart Energy Council, 22 June 2024, Nuclear Fallout: $116-$600 billion to build 7 nuclear reactors.)

* CSIRO: nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050

* Australia will not come close to net zero by 2050 under Coalition’s nuclear plan

* New analysis: Nuclear reactors a disaster for climate emissions

* Nuclear more costly and could ‘sound the death knell’ for Australia’s decarbonisation efforts, report says

* Australia’s ‘carbon budget’ may blow out by 40% under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan – and that’s the best-case scenario

——————>

CSIRO: nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050

“GenCost found nuclear power to be more expensive than renewables and estimated a development timeline of at least 15 years, including construction. This reflects the absence of a local development pipeline, additional legal, safety and security requirements, and stakeholder evidence. Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”

——————>

Australia will not come close to net zero by 2050 under Coalition’s nuclear plan

George Wilkenfeld and Clive Hamilton, Jun 27, 2024

Examines implications of building 7.2 GW of nuclear capacity under the Coalition’s timeline, or a more realistic timeline, combined with a Dutton government halting new approvals for large scale PV and wind but allowing completion of projects already under construction. (Since this was written, the Coalition has said the 7 targeted sites could each house multiple reactors so the capacity could be significantly in excess of 7.2 GW.)

“To achieve zero emissions from electricity by 2050 while freezing large scale renewables at the 2027 level would require much more nuclear generation than proposed by the Coalition …. In fact, it would require over four times as much nuclear generation to come online by 2050. It is clear from this analysis that the Coalition’s announced plan for nuclear power and its continued commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 are nowhere near compatible. Either much more nuclear energy is needed or the commitment to net zero must be abandoned.”

Wilkenfeld and Hamilton go on to note that to bridge the gap with nuclear would require a highly improbable build rate:

“We now show that achieving net zero by 2050 through the roll-out of nuclear energy is virtually impossible. To reach zero electricity emissions by 2050 Australia would need to achieve, from scratch, a better build rate than Japan achieved some time after it had already commissioned its first reactor, with roughly a fifth of Japan’s population and industrial capacity. In fact, for its population size, Australia would need to exceed the highest nuclear build rates ever achieved.”

Finally, Wilkenfeld and Hamilton estimate increased greenhouse emissions based on various scenarios:

“Even if it were possible to replace fossil fuels with enough nuclear to reach zero emissions from electricity by 2050, emissions in the intervening years would be nearly 54 per cent higher than under the renewables pathway. …

“The Coalition’s nuclear strategy would increase Australia’s cumulative emissions over the period to 2050 by at least 1,462 Mt CO2-e compared with the renewables pathway. This is equivalent to nearly 3.4 times Australia’s total annual emissions (433 Mt CO2-e in 2022).”

Their conclusion:

“Our analysis shows that the Coalition’s nuclear strategy, if it met its stated aims, would see nuclear plants account for approximately 12 per cent of total electricity generation by 2050.

“The slowed pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would result in renewables supplying 49 per cent of total supply (compared with 98 per cent under Labor’s plan) and gas generation supplying approximately 39 per cent (compared with 2 per cent under Labor’s plan). It would have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries, but would be a major boost to the gas industry. 

“With high continued supply of electricity from gas under the Coalition’s plan, attaining net zero emissions by 2050 would be out of the question. Attaining net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans.

“Under Labor’s renewables plan, Australia’s electricity emissions are expected to decline year on year until they reach almost zero on 2050. Under the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power, a declining emphasis on renewables and an unavoidably greater role for fossil fuels means emissions from the electricity sector in 2050 would be nearly 19 times higher than under Labor’s plan.”

——————>

New analysis: Nuclear reactors a disaster for climate emissions

Solutions for Climate Australia, 11/6/24 (before Dutton’s 19/6/24 announcement)

Climate pollution would blow out by more than two billion tonnes

New analysis has found the impact on climate change of attempting to adopt nuclear reactors in Australia would be the equivalent of emitting double the 2022 annual emissions of the resource state of Oman, every year for the next 25 years.

That equates to an additional 2.3 billion tonnes of climate emissions between now and 2050 when compared to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan ‘Step Change Scenario’ that models the most likely energy transformation scenario under current policy settings. 

The federal Coalition has not released the full details of their nuclear reactors plan. This analysis by Solutions for Climate Australia is based on public statements from Coalition leaders, Peter Dutton, Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud, including: a halt to utility-scale renewable energy projects; continuing to roll out rooftop solar; and using gas-fired electricity to cover the gap between coal closing and the proposal for nuclear reactors to come online. 

——————>

Nuclear more costly and could ‘sound the death knell’ for Australia’s decarbonisation efforts, report says

The Guardian, 28 June 2024

Analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance says even if nuclear is successfully implemented it would be ‘at least four times’ more expensive than average cost of renewables

A nuclear-powered Australian economy would result in higher-cost electricity and would “sound the death knell” for decarbonisation efforts if it distracts from renewables investment, a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) argues.

BNEF said the federal opposition’s plan to build nuclear power stations on seven sites required “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans in at least three states, for starters.

Even if they succeeded, the levelised cost of electricity – a standard industry measure – would be far higher for nuclear power than renewables. Taking existing nuclear industries in western nations into account, their cost would still be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants firmed up with storage today, Bloomberg said.

“Nuclear could play a valuable, if expensive, role in Australia’s future power mix,” the report said. “However, if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for its decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.”

Bloomberg’s analysis complements CSIRO’s GenCost report that also found nuclear energy to be far more costly than zero-carbon alternatives. Australia’s lack of experience with the industry would result in a learning “premium” that would double the price of the first nuclear plant, according to the CSIRO.

Bloomberg also found that assuming the opposition’s seven plants had a generation capacity of 14 gigawatts, they would supply only a fraction of the total market.

If governments tried to rely on inflexible generators – whether coal-fired or nuclear – as renewables increased, they would have to resort to subsidies and other market interventions at a cost to taxpayers, Bloomberg said.

——————>

Australia’s ‘carbon budget’ may blow out by 40% under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan – and that’s the best-case scenario

July 2, 2024, The Conversation

Sven Teske, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors, if elected, would represent a huge shift in energy policy for Australia. It also poses serious questions about whether this nation can meet its international climate obligations.

If Australia is to honour the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5˚C by mid-century, it can emit about 3 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon dioxide (CO₂) over the next 25 years. This remaining allowance is what’s known as our “carbon budget”.

My colleagues and I recently outlined the technological options for Australia to remain within its carbon budget. We did this using a tool we developed over many years, the “One Earth Climate Model”. It’s a detailed study of pathways for various countries to meet the 1.5˚C goal.

So what happens if we feed the Coalition’s nuclear strategy into the model? As I outline below, even if the reactors are built, the negative impact on Australia’s carbon emissions would be huge. Over the next decade, the renewables transition would stall and coal and gas emissions would rise – possibly leading to a 40% blowout in Australia’s carbon budget.

…

Using the One Earth climate model, I calculated two scenarios of how the policy would affect Australia’s carbon emissions until 2050. These calculations have not yet been peer-reviewed, but are based on an established modelling tool and publicly available information.

Under the first scenario, the Coalition’s seven nuclear reactors are built and operating by 2040 (bearing in mind this timeframe is highly unlikely to be achieved). The reactors would have a total capacity of about 6.5 gigawatts and produce about 50 terrawatt hours of electricity.

Let’s say Australia wants to stay within its carbon budget of 3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted in the three decades to 2050. Would this be achieved under the nuclear plan? The results produced by our model suggest the clear answer is no.

It shows with nuclear in the mix, Australia’s total emissions would rise from 3 billion tonnes to 4.2 billion tonnes – blowing our 2050 carbon budget by 40%.

This assumes two 0.5 gigawatt gas power plants are built by 2030 and another two of the same capacity by 2040. It also assumes the capacity of existing coal-fired power of 16 gigawatts in 2030, 10 gigawatts in 2035 and 5 gigawatts in 2040. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects Australia’s entire coal fleet will be retired by 2038. So this scenario would require extending the life of coal plants.

Under the second scenario, Australia realises nuclear energy is totally unfeasible, and from 2035 reverts to Plan A: an economy powered mostly by renewable energy. But during that lost decade, Australia’s rate of renewable electricity generation stagnates.

In this case, according to the modelling, the delay would cause Australia to blow its carbon budget by more than 100% by 2050 – emitting a total of 6.7 billion tonnes of CO₂.

April 2024

Unbiased polls find that support for nuclear power in Australia falls short of a majority; that Australians support renewables to a far greater extent than nuclear power; that a majority do not want nuclear reactors built near where they live; and that most Australians are concerned about nuclear accidents and nuclear waste.

Here are the results from some polls in Australia over the past five years, with a decent sample size and questions that weren’t designed to push respondents in one direction or another:

* 2024 Resolve Political Monitor survey commissioned by the Nine newspapers: 36 percent support nuclear power, 23 percent opposed, 15 percent undecided, 27 percent “do not have a strong view, and would like to see the government investigate its use”.

* 2023 Freshwater Strategy Poll: 35 percent support nuclear power, 35 percent opposed, 18 percent neutral, 12 percent unsure. Thirty-seven percent agree that ‘Australia does not need to generate any energy from nuclear power’, 36 percent disagree, 27 percent neutral. Forty-four percent agree that Australia should remove the legal ban on nuclear power development, 29 percent disagree, 25 percent neutral.

* 2023 Essential poll: 50 percent support Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity, 33 percent opposed, 18 percent unsure.

* 2023 Savanta study commissioned by the pro-nuclear Radiant Energy Group: 40 percent strongly support or tend to support using nuclear energy to generate electricity in Australia, 36 percent strongly oppose or tend to oppose, 17 percent neutral, 7 percent don’t know. The study found that those who are most climate-concerned are least likely to support the use of nuclear power. (Perhaps they are better educated on the issues and the options.)

* 2019 Essential poll: 44 percent support nuclear power, 40 percent opposed.

* 2019 Roy Morgan Poll: 45 percent support nuclear power, 40 percent opposed.

Nuclear supporters can take comfort that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition in most of those polls. But support doesn’t reach a majority in any of them.

Opposition to locally-built nuclear reactors

Opposition to locally-built nuclear power reactors has been clear and consistent for 20 years or more. Here are some recent poll results:

* 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: Around one-quarter of voters would tolerate a nuclear plant being built within 50 km of their home, while a majority (53 percent) would oppose it.

* 2022 Pure Profile poll: “Around 50 percent” of respondents in Australia, the US and Canada would feel “uncomfortable” if a new nuclear power station were built in their city. For the Australian respondents, 27 percent would feel “extremely uncomfortable”, 7 percent would feel “extremely at ease”.

* 2019 Essential poll: 28 percent “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, 60 percent would not.

* 2019 Roy Morgan poll: 19 percent would agree to a nuclear power plant being built in their area, 58 percent would be opposed and a further 23 percent would be “anxious” (so 81 percent would be opposed or anxious).

Nuclear waste and accidents are major concerns

The September 2023 Freshwater Strategy Poll found that a majority of respondents (55 percent) agreed with the proposition ‘I am concerned that nuclear plants are unsafe and people will be harmed’ while 27 percent disagreed and 17 percent were neutral.

The 2023 Savanta poll found that 77 percent of respondents were concerned about nuclear waste management compared to 18 percent not concerned; and 77 percent were concerned about “health & safety (i.e. nuclear meltdowns, impact on people living nearby)” compared to 21 percent not concerned.

A November 2012 Essential poll found that 63 percent of respondents agreed that nuclear power isn’t worth it because of the need to manage radioactive waste, and 62 percent agreed that nuclear power is too risky because of the potential for serious accidents.

Younger voters

The Murdoch-Coalition echo-chamber was especially excited about younger poll respondents in the February Newspoll survey (65 percent support, 32 percent opposition). But the poll was biased and as Goot notes, other polls reach different conclusions:

“But eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds as the age group most favourably disposed to nuclear power is not what Essential shows, not what Savanta shows, and not what RedBridge shows. “In October’s Essential poll, no more than 46 per cent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-four supported “nuclear power plants” — the same proportion as those aged thirty-six to fifty-four but a smaller proportion than those aged fifty-five-plus (56 per cent); the proportion of “strong” supporters was actually lower among those aged eighteen to thirty-four than in either of the other age-groups.

“In the Savanta survey, those aged eighteen to thirty-four were the least likely to favour nuclear energy; only about 36 per cent were in favour, strongly or otherwise, not much more than half the number that Newspoll reported.

“And according to a report of the polling conducted in February by RedBridge, sourced to Tony Barry, a partner and former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, “[w]here there is support” for nuclear power “it is among only those who already vote Liberal or who are older than 65”.”

Renewables are far more popular than nuclear

Opinion polls clearly show that renewables are far more popular than nuclear power:

* December 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: 81 percent support for solar energy, onshore wind 57 percent, offshore wind 57 percent, gas 53 percent, hydrogen 48 percent, nuclear 35 percent, coal 33 percent.

* September 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: Solar energy is the most popular energy source (84 percent support, 6 percent opposed), onshore and offshore wind are next (61 and 58 percent support, 12 percent opposed), while nuclear (35 percent support, 35 percent opposed) and coal (33 percent support, 35 percent opposed) are the least popular. Among Coalition voters, there is more support for renewables (35 percent) than nuclear (32 percent) as the ‘best option for energy generation in Australia’. For Labor voters, 62 percent think renewables are the best option, 17 percent nuclear. For Greens voters, 78 percent renewables, 6 percent nuclear.

* 2023 Savanta poll: 56 percent of Australian respondents think the energy transition should focus on renewables (41 percent large-scale solar farms, 15 percent onshore wind farms), 23 percent think it should focus on nuclear power.

* 2023 Australia Institute survey: 27 percent included nuclear power in their top three preferences, behind solar 68 percent, wind 51 percent, hydro 39 percent and power storage 28 percent.

BARNGARLA DETERMINATION ABORIGINAL CORPORATION

MEDIA RELEASE 

TUESDAY JUNE 13, 2023 

Federal Governments spend against Barngarla Traditional Owners keep climbing in the lead up to a referendum for a Voice to Parliament.

Recent Senate estimates reveal a spend of $13,834,856 in legal costs by the Federal Government against the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) over the nuclear waste dump planned for Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.

BDAC Chairperson Jason Bilney has responded to these figures: “How can the Labor Government champion a Voice to Parliament while spending close to $14 million fighting us in court? It’s disrespectful and hypocritical. We have always said no to having a nuclear dump on our lands.”

“If the Federal Government are serious about First Nations people having a voice then they should listen to ours, the Barngarla people.”

On June 01, 2023 Sam Usher, CEO of the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) was asked by Senator Barbara Pocock what the overall legal spend for both the trials against the Barngarla had been. Mr Usher’s answer provided the figures of $13,083,132 on related external legal costs and $751,724 on internal department legal staff.

This question from the can be viewed from the Senate Estimates Committee at 21:59:38:06 https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1221342

“We worked for over 20 years to have our Barngarla Native Title Rights recognised, and then before we knew it, we were hit with plans for a unwanted nuclear waste dump and have been given no voice to say no – in fact we were excluded from the right to vote in a community ballot on the issue in 2019 .” 

In March 6, 2023 the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) took action in the  Federal Court in Adelaide to overturn the federal Ministerial declaration to select Napandee near Kimba as the proposed site for a national nuclear waste facility. The court is expected to hand down a finding before the end of the year.  

Please see issue briefing paper below. 

——————-

BARNGARLA PEOPLE AND THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY 2023 BRIEFING 

Background 

The federal government plans to build a facility to store intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) and dispose of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and after a highly controversial process the Coalition Government declared Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula as the proposed site in November 2021. This facility is  

The proposal for a facility at Kimba – known as the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 

(“NRWMF”) – follows previous abandoned attempts including near Woomera in SA (2004), Muckaty Station in the NT (2014) and Wallerberdina Station in the Flinders Ranges (2019). Like Kimba, all failed to secure a social and community licence. Successive federal governments have been seeking a solution for Australia’s long-lived radioactive waste for decades. South Australia has long standing legislation that makes the building of a national nuclear waste facility illegal. In 2022 SA Premier Peter Malinauskas and the Labor party support a Barngarla veto right over the nuclear waste plan.   

Barngarla Position 

The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) represent the Barngarla Native Title holders. The Barngarla have a determined Native Title area of 34,481 km2 covering parts of the Eyre Peninsula, including Kimba. Barngarla people have fought against the proposal in the courts and expressed their position through rallies, protests, public meetings, and the media.  

A community ballot was conducted by the Kimba District Council in November 2019. Of 734 formal votes, 452 were Yes (61.6%) and 282 No (38.4%). After being excluded from the Kimba Council ballot, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (“BDAC”) engaged the Australian Election Company, an independent ballot agent, to conduct a confidential postal ballot of BDAC members regarding the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The ballot paper asked members: “Do you support the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?” Of 209 eligible voters (all of whom are Barngarla native title holders), 83 cast valid “No” votes. Zero “Yes” votes were returned. This unanimous “No” vote demonstrates that there is absolutely no support at all within the Barngarla community for the NRWMF. 

The Barngarla people stand side by side with many in the Kimba and EP farming community opposing the waste dump and have support from many national and state civil society groups including Conservation SA and Unions SA.  

No Dump Alliance, “Weatherill has turned his back on Traditional Owners over waste dump”, Media Release, 14 Nov. 2016.

No Dump Alliance spokesperson and Narungga man Tauto Sansbury has come out swinging against Jay Weatherill’s announcement that he is continuing his push to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump.

“The high level nuclear waste dump is overwhelmingly opposed by Traditional Owners and the wider community and the Premier’s announcement is a divisive move to get his own way. It is deeply disappointing that Aboriginal communities must continue to fight this issue when we have so many other issues to deal with.”

The Community Views Report released on Sunday states: “Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed concern about the potential negative impacts on their culture and the long-term, generational consequences of increasing the state’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle. There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”“Our people will continue to fight this nuclear waste dump proposal to the end,” said Mr Sansbury.

Ms. Karina Lester, Chairperson Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC) and daughter of Atomic test survivor Yami Lester said “We will stand our ground and maintain what we have said all along: “No waste dump in our Ngura (Country)”.  I will take this to our YNTAC AGM and discuss with our members what the Premier is now saying, to run a Statewide Referendum, and rally my community to use our rights to veto and say no to this unjust and insane idea of storing and disposing of nuclear waste from other countries.  South Australians have been engaged in his process and have strongly spoken up about South Australia, that it is too good to waste.  This is not only South Australia’s issue and decision to make this is Australia’s issue. No means no.”

No Dump Alliance spokesperson and MUA Branch Secretary Jamie Newlyn was surprised by the Premier’s lack of political judgment by announcing a referendum into SA becoming the world’s Nuclear Waste Dump.

“Premier Jay Weatherill has proven politically adept at picking up on whether a policy will fly with the community, but on the issue of nuclear waste he has totally missed the mark.

The Citizen’s jury, Aboriginal community and tens of thousands of South Australians have made it clear that South Australia and Australia should not be the world’s Nuclear Waste Dump.The economics don’t stack up, Safety of Workers and Community doesn’t stack up, Environmental concerns don’t stack up and ignoring Aboriginal concerns don’t stack up.

The MUA call on the Premier to abandon the case for Nuclear Waste and look for bold sustainable job creating ideas for our great state that we can all be proud of and support.

The No Dump Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups and academics who have opposed any move to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. Since the state has been pursuing waste dump plans the Alliance has been actively advocating against the waste dump and represented the views of its members.

www.nodumpalliance.org.au

info@nodumpalliance.org

Arabunna Elder Uncle Kevin Buzzacott passed away in Alice Springs on November 29, 2023. A fierce advocate for his people and for a nuclear-free Australia, Kevin will be sorely missed.

Kevin Buzzacott on Arabunna country in front of a water pumping station for the Olympic Dam mine.

Kevin was born in 1946 at Finniss Springs, on Arabunna country in South Australia. As a youngster, he learnt culture, language, how to live off the land, and he learnt to work with cattle and horses. Over the years, Kevin and his family lived in many places including Alice Springs, Tarcoola and Gawler. He worked on the railways for many years.

In 1984, Kevin moved to Port Augusta, where he worked as alcohol and drug worker. In 1985 he moved to Alice Springs where he worked on the successful campaign to stop the damming of the Todd River. He helped establish the Arrernte Council in Alice Springs and served as an ATSIC regional Councillor.

In the mid-1990s Kevin returned to South Australia to protect Arabunna country. One of his major campaigns was to try to stop the rapacious water take from the Great Artesian Basin by mining company WMC (and later BHP) to supply the Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine at Roxby Downs. The daily extraction of around 40 million litres of water has adversely affected the precious Mound Springs on Arabunna country ‒ desert oases supported by the underlying Great Artesian Basin. Kevin’s campaign might eventually succeed: there are plans to build a desalination plant on Spencer Gulf which could lead to a reduction and possible cessation of the water take from the Great Artesian Basin.

Kevin explained:

“I’ve been at this game of calling for justice and peace for 30, maybe 40 years, but what really got me going was when Western Mining Corporation (WMC) set up the Olympic Dam mine. They started doing deals with the government on pastoral leases. So they did deals with S. Kidman & Co. and took up one of their cattle stations, Stuart’s Creek Station, which is on Arabunna land. Because of our native title and ongoing land rights campaigning, we’ve been fighting for these places for a long time. Stuart’s Creek is a very special, sacred place for us, and we’ve been trying to get it back for a long time.

“I thought that just before they bought that place I’d go and protest and camp on it. Also, it is on that station, on the shores of the Lake Eyre, where WMC started taking the sacred water out of the Lake Eyre Basin. That was where they started sucking the life blood out of us. That is where they put their big bore down, right on the shores of the lake. That was a real kick in the guts for me and really got me going.”

Protest camp

Kevin set up a protest camp on Arabunna country:

“I weighed it all up and I said to the mob, ‘I need some help out here. We’ll set up camp and contest WMC.’ There were a lot of levels involved with fighting the mine, but making the camp was like reclaiming the land or making a statement.

“We had a lot of tourists that came to visit, and were interested in finding out what was going on. Thousands of people came through the camp. We had flyers at an information tent, and free tea and coffee; we set up a lot of things. People who came across us on a trip to the desert and Lake Eyre learnt about the issues and were concerned about what was going on. When they talked with us they were upset about what was going on. Nobody knew about it, and that was one of the reasons in my mind why that was happening out in the desert.”

The protest camp was established in March 1999. WMC was among the most viciously racist mining companies in Australia and true to form, the company tried to have Arabunna Elder Kevin Buzzacott evicted from Arabunna country. The protest camp lasted until it was busted up by WMC goons and local police in December 1999.

Kevin initiated court actions against WMC and the federal government. These actions weren’t successful in the courts but helped draw attention to the issues Kevin was fighting for:

“I did a court action against Hugh Morgan, who was the head of WMC. I charged Hugh Morgan with genocide, trying to flush him out and some of the shareholders. Hugh Morgan is based in Victoria. People in Melbourne deserve to live in a good place, they don’t need to live with these criminals and warmongers. Another court action I did was one I brought against Alexander Downer and Senator Robert Hill for stopping Lake Eyre from becoming a World Heritage site.”

After the protest camp on Arabunna country was busted up, Kevin set up a protest camp at Genocide Corner ‒ outside the SA Governor’s residence in the centre of Adelaide:

“I had to go to Adelaide for the court case against Hugh Morgan, and when I was there the charges against Hugh Morgan were dismissed. The judge was a pastor in the Lutheran Church, and I asked him to stand down because I believed he had a conflict of interest as his church was a shareholder in the WMC. When he refused to do so I told him to get stuffed, walked out and went straight down to Government House to start a protest. I took banners, and whatever things I had.

“While I was talking to the media I was confronted by the cops. I looked over the road and saw a patch of grass and thought, “Bugger it, I’ll make camp and a fire here.” I ended up calling it genocide Corner, and renamed Adelaide the City of Genocide. It was on the intersection of King William Street and North Terrace [one of the main intersections in the city] so loads of people were passing by. Four ceremonial fires for peace were lit, and after 21 days the Adelaide City Council and 50 police came down and arrested me for failing to cease to loiter. It was one of those laws they hadn’t used in a long time, but they used it to clear away all my stuff and my supporters. One of the court conditions was that I was not able to walk within the vicinity of Genocide Corner. I was of a mind just to walk straight back there, but I had the Peace Walk from Lake Eyre to Sydney coming up so I had to let that one go.”

Peace Walk

The Peace Walk was timed to reach Sydney for the Olympics in September 2000:

“We walked for months, for 3,000 kilometres, and all sorts of people from all walks of life joined us. We were carrying the fire for peace and justice. I made sure that we went through lots of different Aboriginal communities. I got a lot of support, but the government also pressured a lot of people not to support me by threatening their jobs and funding. Each place we went to, people took us through their land and we respected each mob.

“There were all types of pressure put on people along the way. The cops were nasty and threatened some of the walkers with guns and everything. I visited all the jails along the way from Broken Hill to Dubbo and Bathurst. It was sad to see so many young brothers confined and locked up.

“We went to Canberra and met up with the Tent Embassy mob. A couple of politicians came to meet us and then we all went to Government House to present the Governor-General with a document of peace and justice.

“When we arrived in Sydney for the Olympic Games the Tent Embassy mob had already set up a camp [in Victoria Park], so we joined up with them. We did all sorts of things. We did a re-enactment at the beach where Captain Cook came in. We re-enacted the bad way in which he came with guns and all that and then the next day we did how they should have come.”

In 2002, Kevin reclaimed the Emu and Kangaroo totems from the Australian Coat of Arms hanging outside Parliament House, Canberra:

“I had watched the Federal Police arresting our people at the Tent Embassy and other places. They all wore these caps with the Emu and Kangaroo emblem on them. I knew how sacred these animals were to us and I had talked with old people about how the government was misusing them while they locked us up and treated us like dirt. On the 30th anniversary of the embassy I told everyone that I had a plan and that they should join me with their cameras. We went up to Parliament and I climbed up one of the pillars and grabbed the Coat Of Arms and walked off with it. It was in broad daylight and I said: “I’m not stealing this, I’m reclaiming it and taking back the use of our sacred animals.”

“Years later [in 2005] when I was visiting Canberra the cops came down to the Tent Embassy with a summons for theft and defacing government property and so on. During the court case I questioned their authority and jurisdiction over me and over this land. I talked to the jury about the imposition of foreign laws upon our people and the theft of our lands and got a 12-month suspended sentence with good behaviour.”

Peace Pilgrimage to Japan

In 2004, Kevin participated in the Peace Pilgrimage from the Olympic Dam uranium mine to Hiroshima, Japan:

“During the first walk and then in Sydney we met people from all over and that got everything going. Aboriginal nations from Queensland were saying there should be a walk up the coast to show the world the things they were suffering. Then some people made contact with people in Hiroshima to have a walk from the uranium mine in Roxby to where the bomb was dropped in order to show how all these things are linked. Aboriginal people, Japanese monks, all sorts of people were involved. It started at Roxby and then went to Canberra and then an aeroplane took us to Japan where we walked all over the country. We visited Nagasaki and Hiroshima and met a lot of people who were kids when the bombs were falling. We did talks and took part in a huge ceremony on the anniversary of the bomb being dropped. There were people everywhere and lanterns lit and people crying, it was full on.”

In 2006, Kevin went to Melbourne for the Stolenwealth Games:

“After the court case I came down to Melbourne where Robbie Thorpe and others were setting up a camp in Kings Domain during the Commonwealth, or Stolenwealth, Games. We had hundreds of people camping and visiting. We also had all sorts of hassles from the cops and council and everyone else, but we stayed put and proved our point.

“When the games came we had rallies and big marches and ceremonies and I talked about the need for justice and the need for white Australia to respect our cultural values and to stop the destruction of our sacred sites and our country.”

And Kevin was back in Melbourne in 2008 for BHP’s Annual General Meeting:

“BHP have taken over WMC. They now own Olympic Dam and want to make it bigger. Myself and others who want to stop the mine got to be proxies for shareholders, they gave us tickets and we got to go inside on their behalf. I got to speak and I told the people there about the damage they are doing and that they need to stop it immediately.

“Aboriginal people have lived here for more than 40,000 years and cared for this country, but now its being turned into a sick and evil place. Myself, and others around this country, were born to be peacemakers.

“We mustn’t be frightened to educate others and fight, but not in a warlike way, to protect the earth and let everything run free. I don’t want to shoot or bomb the people from BHP and the others who are destroying this country because two wrongs don’t make a right. I think if I can help them to wake up to what they are doing then that will be punishment enough.”

Kevin was at the first meeting of the Alliance Against Uranium (later renamed the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance) in 1997, and for many years he served as the Alliance’s President. He actively supported countless campaigns against uranium mining and plans to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land. He was at the Beverley uranium mine supporting Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in May 2000 when SA police viciously and illegally attacked protesters, children and journalists. Kevin was at the Lizard’s Revenge protest at Olympic Dam in 2012.

Awards

In 2001, Kevin was awarded Nuclear-Free Future Resistance Award by the Nuclear-Free Future Foundation and travelled to Ireland to accept the award.

In 2006, Kevin was awarded the SA Conservation Council’s Jill Hudson Award.

In 2007, Kevin was awarded the Australian Conservation Foundation’s 2007 Peter Rawlinson Award for two decades of work highlighting the impacts of uranium mining and promoting a nuclear free Australia. ACF Executive Director Don Henry said:

“Kevin is a cultural practitioner, an activist, an advocate and an educator.  He has travelled tirelessly, talking to groups large and small about the impacts of uranium mining and the threats posed by the nuclear industry.  Kevin has had a profound impact on the lives of many people – especially young people – with his many tours and ‘on-country’ events.  For many young activists ‘Uncle Kev’ is truly an unsung hero and, against the current pro-nuclear tide, his is a very important struggle and story.”

Kevin participated in many of the Radioactive Exposure Tours run by Friends of the Earth. We camped at the ‘Old Lake’ (Lake Eyre) and generations of young activists learnt first-hand about the impacts of the Olympic Dam mine on country and culture.

Kevin’s partner Margret Gilchrist passed on Kevin’s final message when he returned to Alice Springs with his health failing: “Keep that old fire burning, don’t stop til we’ve won, Lake Eyre for World Heritage.”

Kevin’s funeral service can be viewed online and many videos featuring Kevin can be found at Cinemata and YouTube.

[Written by Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.]

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ALLIGATOR ENERGY’S APPLICATION FOR A RETENTION LEASE OVER THE BLACKBUSH DEPOSIT (SAMPHIRE URANIUM PROJECT)

To: Mining Regulation Branch

SA Department for Energy and Mining

September 2023

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The SA Department for Energy and Mining should reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.
2. Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.
3. The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.
4. The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at the Beverley and Honeymoon mines. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.
5. There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans for eluate disposal before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed.
6. The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.
7. The Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.

INTRODUCTION

Friends of the Earth Australia opposes uranium mining for various reasons including the weapons proliferation risks associated with the industry, and the intractable problem of high-level nuclear waste management. Those issues are beyond the scope of the SA Department for Energy and Mining’s consideration of the Samphire project application. Nevertheless we call on the Department to reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.

It is more than likely that the Samphire mine will not proceed to commercial production due to:

• The modest size of the uranium deposit (18.1Mlbs U3O8 at a 250ppm cut-off grade (combined Inferred and Indicated) from 11.4Mt @ 720ppm U3O8).[1]
• Stubbornly low uranium prices over the past decade, notwithstanding a price increase in 2023 which may or may not be sustained.[2]
• Near-zero prospects for significant worldwide uranium demand increase.[3]
• The largest worldwide producers ‒ Cameco and Kazatomprom ‒ have put large uranium mine projects into care-and-maintenance in recent years and the re-entry of those large projects will put downward pressure on prices and severely limit the prospects for small start-ups such as Alligator Energy.
• Alligator Energy notes that the company plans “to undertake a Feasibility Study in 2024, with all activity requiring further State and Federal Government approvals, and the securing of project financing amongst other key matters, before a mine could be developed.”

The Samphire project was abandoned a decade ago and will likely be abandoned again. This highlights the need for full rehabilitation of the site if approval is granted for a Field Recovery Trial.

Recommendation: Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.

SOLID WASTE

A 2003 SA government audit of radioactive wastes stated that the Radium Hill waste repository contains some contaminated equipment from test work conducted at the Honeymoon site in the early 1980s.[4] The same audit noted that the Radium Hill waste repository “is not engineered to a standard consistent with current internationally accepted practice.”

Dumping contaminated solid waste at the sub-standard repository at Radium Hill is not an option for Alligator Energy. What plans does Alligator Energy have for the disposal of solid wastes contaminated with radionuclides and other toxins?

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that low-level radioactive waste generated during the Field Recovery Trial will include:

“Soil wastes generated within operational areas that have been in contact with process fluids or material from the mineralised zone, are waste streams derived from processing, and/or are waste materials that do not meet specified radiological clearance limits.”

The Retention Lease Proposal also provides the following information on solid low-level radioactive wastes:

The Retention Lease Proposal goes on to state:

“Low level radioactive wastes will be securely stored on site during the leach trials in compliance with the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 and associated regulations the specific requirements that will be detailed in the site Radiation Management Plan and Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RMP/RWMP).”

The Retention Lease Proposal envisages disposal in a “licensed disposal facility”. To the best of our knowledge, SA does not have a “licensed disposal facility” for low-level radioactive waste, in which case Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

Recommendation: The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.

RADIOACTIVE LIQUID SPILLS

A feature of ISL mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive solutions. The SA Department of Primary Industry and Resources listed 59 spills at Beverley from 1998-2007 and presumably there have been many more since 2007.

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that spills of low-level radioactive liquid waste are anticipated to amount to no more than one cubic metre. It further states: “All low-level radioactive waste streams will be transferred to the liquid waste storage vessel, then directed to the liquid disposal zone where disposal will occur.”

Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at Beverley and Honeymoon. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.

LIQUID WASTE AND ATTENUATION

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that eluate (containing ~6000lbs of dissolved uranium) from the ion exchange stripping process will be the end product and will be stored in tanks onsite. Alligator proposes retaining the stored eluate for approximately one year post the end of the Field Recovery Trial to allow sufficient time for a formal decision on whether or not to proceed to a full-scale mining operation with the two options cited being: eluate retained onsite for future Alligator Energy production or donated for precipitation at one of SA’s producing ISR mines.

Recommendation: There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed. Alligator talks about plural in-situ recovery (ISR) mines although it surely knows that only Beverley is operating.

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states:

“If field natural attenuation monitoring cannot be verified within 5 years, a reassessment of the model against field parameters will be undertaken and model rerun (if required). Natural attenuation monitoring for model verification will be undertaken until model validation is accepted by relevant regulatory agencies. In the event, model validation cannot be achieved, Alligator will undertake active groundwater restoration methods such as groundwater flush or sweep.”

Further detail is required on groundwater restoration options. The Retention Lease Proposal is unacceptably vague.

Alligator Energy will have precious little interest in groundwater restoration if a decision is made not to proceed to commercial mining. The company may not have the resources for groundwater restoration. The company may not even exist in five years’ time. All this points to the need for a financial bond to be lodged with the SA government to ensure that adequate resources are available for full site rehabilitation including groundwater restoration.

BEVERLEY/HEATHGATE WHISTLEBLOWER

A former Heathgate worker contacted Friends of the Earth in 2022 and provided the following information:

* Heathgate breaks every rule in the book and Beverley may be the worst-run mine in SA.

* Regulation is deficient in many respects within and between the SA EPA, Safe Work SA and SA Water.

* Heathgate should have been hit with one or more $30,000 fines by Safe Work SA but Safe Work SA has been negligent.

* Gross mismanagement by Heathgate has led to high staff turn-over ‒ in particular with respect to staff responsible for worker safety.

* Lids have come off uranium drums at the Beverley plant and also on one or more ships transporting uranium to the USA. The handling of uranium spillages at Beverley has grossly violated safety protocols.

* Problems arising from a revolving door between regulators and Heathgate.

* Heathgate isn’t prepared to spend the money required to fix problems at Beverley, and there is little or no pressure from regulators.

* Problems with radioactive monitoring badges, e.g. not replaced if lost.

* Culture of acceptance of safety lapses, anyone speaking up may be fired. NDAs are part of the problem.

Clearly the concerns raised by the former Heathgate employee raise concerns regarding other mines including the Samphire proposal, in particular whether regulatory deficiencies will have adverse consequences.

Have there been ICAC and/or Office of Public Integrity investigations into aspects of Heathgate’s operations at Beverley? If so, what lessons if any were learned and how is that knowledge impacting assessment of other projects including Alligator Energy’s Samphire project?

Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.

HISTORY OF IN-SITU LEACH URANIUM MINING

In-situ leach (ISL) uranium mining involves pumping an acid solution (or an alkaline solution in some cases) into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive waste – containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid – is simply dumped in groundwater.

A 2004 CSIRO report states:[5]

“As stated in the Beverley Assessment Report, the bleed solutions, waste solutions from uranium recovery, plant washdown waters and bleed streams from the reverse osmosis plants are collected prior to disposal into the Namba aquifer via disposal wells. These liquid wastes are combined and concentrated in holding/evaporation ponds, with excess injected into selected locations within the mined aquifer. The injected liquid is acidic (pH 1.8 to 2.8) and contains heavy metals and radionuclides originating from the orebody.

From being inert and immobile in the ore body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now mobile in the aquifer.

The 2004 CSIRO report endorsed the dumping of liquid waste in ground-water yet the information and arguments it used in support of that conclusion were tenuous. The CSIRO report notes that attenuation is “not yet proven” and the timeframe of “several years to decades” could hardly be more vague. The 2004 CSIRO report states in its Executive Summary:

“The use of acid rather than alkaline leaching and disposal of liquid wastes by re-injection into the aquifer is contentious. Available data indicate that both the leach solution and liquid waste have greater concentrations of soluble ions than does the pre-mining groundwater. However as this groundwater has no apparent beneficial use other than by the mining industry, this method of disposal is preferable to surface disposal. Although not yet proven, it is widely believed and accepted that natural attenuation will result in the contaminated water chemistry returning to pre-mining conditions within a timeframe of over several years to decades.”

Elsewhere the 2004 CSIRO report notes uncertainties associated with attenuation:

“The EIA for Beverley and Honeymoon suggest that natural attenuation will occur, however, exact timeframes are not given. The issue of predicting attenuation is made more complex by not fully understanding the microbiological or the mineralogy of the surrounding ore bodies, before and after mining, and how these natural conditions will react with the altered water quality introduced by the injection of leachate, and re-injection of wastewaters. Following general practice, geochemical modelling was undertaken with a series of assumptions where data were not available. Although these assumptions are considered reasonable by the review team, some technical experts have a differing opinion. In any case the results must be considered approximate.

The monitoring results from Beverley are limited by the short duration of mining and operation, and there are currently no completely mined-out areas for which the water chemistry can be followed after mining to verify the extent of the expected natural attenuation. However, pH results for an area that was trial-mined in 1998 and then left until full-scale mining of the same area was due are shown in Figure 13.

Note that whilst other data are available for these wells there are not consistent trends in other analytes. There has been little recovery of groundwater chemistry towards background in the test-production wells other than a favourable change for pH. There are presently no equivalent monitoring data for the northern area, which is presently being mined.”

Even if full attenuation does occur over time, it is unlikely to occur in the timeframe of post-mine-closure monitoring proposed by the mining proponent. The 7/1/09 Beverley Four Mile Project Public Environment – Report and Mining Lease Proposal document states:

“Heathgate proposes an initial period of five years from the conclusion of commercial operations to complete the decommissioning of facilities. A monitoring and maintenance program is proposed to run for a further two years, for a total of seven years from the final conclusion of mining activities. The total monitoring period will be reviewed with the regulatory authorities and may be extended.

“Facilities will therefore be fully decommissioned within seven years from the conclusion of the commercial operation. This period includes a post-completion monitoring period for vegetation maintenance, groundwater sampling, drainage repairs and other activities to ensure the long-term permanent rehabilitation of the site.

The 2004 CSIRO report states:

“Natural attenuation is preferred to adjusting the chemistry of the wastewater prior to re-injection as the latter would result in the need for additional chemicals on-site, generation of contaminated neutralisation sludges which would have to be disposed of, risk of potential clogging of pore spaces in the aquifer and associated higher costs.

Those are not insurmountable problems. Moreover there are alternatives to adjusting the chemistry of waste-water then reinjecting it into the aquifer, such as evaporation followed by management of solid wastes. As the CSIRO report notes:

“10.6 Alternatives to Liquid Waste Re-Injection

“Suggestions made during the community consultation process included not re-injecting the liquid wastes into the aquifer, and neutralisation of waste before re-injection.

“Not re-injecting the waste into the aquifer would require either sophisticated water treatment and/or the installation of much larger evaporation ponds. Both would generate solid wastes to be disposed of in a solid waste repository. When the wastes dried out they would become a possible dust source, which could increase the potential radiation exposure of workers, in particular in relation to dust inhalation, but also from radon inhalation and gamma exposure. Environmental radiation levels at the surface would also increase. These are presently negligible issues associated with the existing ISL practices.

“Neutralisation of the waste liquid prior to re-injection would precipitate out some metal salts, which would need to be filtered before re-injection, and be disposed of in a solid waste repository.

“Also following re-injection it is likely that the re-injection bores would rapidly clog owing to precipitation around the bores, as the injected water and existing acidic water in the aquifer interact. Clogging of re-injection wellfields and associated problems with pipelines and pumps may increase the risk of spills due to operational problems with equipment and increased maintenance.”

None of the issues raised by the CSIRO amount to compelling reasons to support dumping liquid waste in groundwater. Some of the reasons cited are absurd and cast serious doubt over the credibility of the CSIRO review ‒ for example dust suppression is simple and inexpensive.

Recommendation: The SA Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.

The 2003 Senate References and Legislation Committee report into the regulation of uranium mining in Australia reported “a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance”, it identified “many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment”, and it concluded that changes were necessary “in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage”. On ISL mining, the 2003 Senate report stated:

“The Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available on its safety and environmental impacts.”

“The Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts.”

“Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimised.”

 In relation to the Beverley mine, Assoc. Prof. Gavin Mudd notes: “The critical data which could answer scientific questions concerning contaminant mobility in groundwater has never been released by General Atomics. This is especially important since GA no longer maintain the mine is ‘isolated’ from surrounding groundwater, with desires to expand the mine raising legitimate concerns over the groundwater contamination legacy left at Beverley.”

Assoc. Prof. Mudd states:

The mining technique of in situ leaching (ISL), often referred to as solution mining, is becoming an increasingly favoured method for the extraction of uranium across the world. This is primarily due to its low capital and operating costs compared to conventional mining. Little is known about the environmental impact of this method, and mining companies have been able to exploit this to promote the method as “environmentally benign”.

The ISL process involves drilling ground water bores or wells into a uranium deposit, injecting corrosive chemicals to dissolve the uranium within the ore zone, then pumping back the uranium-laden solution.

The method can be applied only to uranium deposits located within a ground water system or confined aquifer, commonly in palaeochannel deposits (old buried river beds).

Although ISL is presented in simplified diagrams by the nuclear industry, the reality is that geological systems are inherently complex and not predictable.

There are a range of options for the chemistry of the mining solutions. Either acidic or alkaline chemical agents can be used in conjunction with an oxidising agent to dissolve the uranium.

Typical oxidising agents include oxygen or hydrogen peroxide, while alkaline agents include ammonia or sodium-bicarbonate or carbon dioxide. The most common acidic chemical used is sulphuric acid, although nitric acid has been tried at select sites and in laboratory tests.

The chemicals can have potentially serious environmental impacts and cause long-term changes to ground water quality.

The use of acidic solutions mobilises high levels of heavy metals, such as cadmium, strontium, lead and chromium. Alkaline solutions tend to mobilise only a few heavy metals such as selenium and molybdenum. The ability to restore the ground water to its pre-mining quality is, arguably, easier at sites that have used alkaline solution chemistry.

A review of the available literature on ISL mines across the world can easily counter the myths promulgated about ISL uranium mining. Whether one examines the USA, Germany, Russia and associated states, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Australia or new ISL projects across Asia, the truth remains the same – the ISL technique merely treats ground water as a sacrifice zone and the problem remains “out of sight, out of mind”.

ISL uranium mining is not controllable, is inherently unsafe and is unlikely to meet “strict environmental controls”. It is not an environmentally benign method of uranium mining.

The use of sulphuric acid solutions at ISL mines across Eastern Europe, as well as a callous disregard for sensible environmental management, has led to many seriously contaminated sites.

Perhaps the most severe example is Straz pod Ralskem in the Czech Republic, where up to 200 billion litres of ground water is contaminated. Restoration of the site is expected to take several decades or even centuries.

Solution escapes and difficult restorations have been documented at ISL sites in Texas and Wyoming.

Australia has encountered the same difficulties, especially at the controversial Honeymoon deposit in South Australia during pilot studies in the early 1980s and at Manyingee in Western Australia until 1985.

The Honeymoon pilot project used sulphuric acid in conjunction with ferric sulphate as the oxidising agent. The wells and aquifer experienced significant blockages due to the minerals jarosite and gypsum precipitating, lowering the efficiency of the leaching process and leading to increased excursions. The aquifers in the vicinity of Honeymoon are known to be connected to aquifers used by local pastoralists to water stock.

Journal articles, conferences papers etc. on ISL mining (and other issues) by Assoc. Prof. Mudd are available online.[6]

A 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report noted:[7]

Field trials” of acid in-situ leach (acid ISL) uranium mining have already occurred at the Beverley uranium mine and the proposed Honeymoon site in north-eastern South Australia. Given the history of leaks and spills that occurred at Honeymoon and Beverley during their “trial” phases, there is significant cause for concern around further such “trials”. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon trial mine in 1999, including one “excursion” of 9,600 litres of “process fluid”, which had a significant uranium and toxic radon gas content, and another in which sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine process unexpectedly traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer. None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the project had been granted state and federal approvals.

During the trial at Beverley through 1998, 500 litres of extraction fluid were spilt, the accident not revealed until 5 months after it occurred. Beverley also experienced a major underground leak of radioactive mining solution to groundwater in 1999, also not confirmed until after state government approvals in 2001.

While one purpose of conducting a “trial” may be to determine the extent and nature of a groundwater system, the injection of acid and radioactive mine waste into aquifers is not an acceptable way of doing this. The South Australian community has a democratic right to participate in decision-making regarding activities with significant environmental impact such as mining. The history of leaks, spills and accidents that characterise ISL mining emphasise the urgent need for full environmental assessment to be conducted before the commencement of any mining, “trial” or otherwise.

The 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report also pointed to severe problems with ISL mining overseas:[8]

Both acid and alkaline ISL mines across the world have left a track record of contamination of surrounding groundwater systems, some of which are the main water supply for communities, with attempts to rehabilitate the groundwater often unsuccessful. Some of the European cases include:

• Königstein (Germany): as of 2005, there was still 1,900 million m3 of radioactive and heavy metals contaminated water within the mining zone. This pollution lies within an aquifer that supplies Dresden with drinking water;
• Devladovo (Ukraine): the surface of the site was heavily contaminated from spills, and groundwater contamination is spreading downstream from the site at a speed of 53m per year. By 1995 it had already traveled a distance of 1.7km, and will reach the village of Devladovo in the next 12 years;
• Bolyarovo, Tenevo/Okop, Haskovo(Bulgaria): very high concentrations of sulfate ions are found in surface water and in the wells of private owners as a result of accidental spilling of solution. All uranium mining and milling in Bulgaria was closed down by government decree in 1992, after over 20km2 of the country was contaminated by uranium industry activity.

The contamination at these and many other sites, including the high concentrations of major ions, heavy metals and radionuclides, has not attenuated significantly over time (as uranium mining companies claim), and instead often migrates through groundwater to pollute other areas.

US geochemist and environmental scientist Richard Abitz comments on his own experience attempting to rehabilitate groundwater at ISL uranium mines in Ohio, Texas and Wyoming. When the mining chemicals are injected into groundwater, he observes, uranium contamination “goes through the roof”. “Once it is in there, the damage has been done”, he says. “It takes hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to transform aquifer water back into a drinkable condition”, and “regardless of the millions of dollars and years of efforts, the water has never been restored.”

Australia’s own problematic experience with ISL uranium mining (limited to the Beverley mine, and the Honeymoon and Manyingee, WA, “trials”), combined with the experience of ISL overseas emphasise the serious risks and impacts of this mining method. That such mining should be permitted in South Australia on a “trial” basis, without environmental impact or public consultation is a grave concern that demands legislative amendment.

[1] Alligator Energy, 2023 Retention Lease Proposal, Executive Summary

[2] https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price

[3] https://reneweconomy.com.au/is-nuclear-power-in-a-global-death-spiral/

[4] Radiation Protection Division, SA Environment Protection Authority, September 2003, ‘Audit of Radioactive Material in South Australia’

[5] Taylor, G.; Farrington, V.; Woods, P.; Ring, R.; Molloy, R. (2004): Review of Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining Process.- CSIRO Land and Water Client Report.

[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20100228164521/http://civil.eng.monash.edu.au/about/staff/muddpersonal More recent ISL papers can be obtained directly from Assoc. Prof. Mudd: https://www.rmit.edu.au/contact/staff-contacts/academic-staff/m/mudd-dr-gavin

[7] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf

[8] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf

Please write to senior SA Labor Government politicians and ask them to contact their federal Labor colleagues calling on them to respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, respect the Federal Court’s July 18 decision, and to abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

1. Send individual emails (not a group email).
2. The politicians’ names and details ‒ including email addresses ‒ are reproduced below.
3. Sample text is copied below. You can use this text but feel free to edit and to add your own thoughts.
4. Make sure to add your name, address and email address at the bottom of your emails.
5. If you have time, please also send some emails to federal Labor politicians: relevant info is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/kimba/

Thanks!

Friends of the Earth Nuclear-Free Campaign

https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste

————

premier@sa.gov.au

Peter Malinauskas

Premier of South Australia

————

officeofthedeputypremier@sa.gov.au

Susan Close

Deputy Premier of South Australia

————

attorneygeneral@sa.gov.au 

Kyam Maher 

Attorney General of South Australia

————

badcoe@parliament.sa.gov.au

Jayne Stinson

Chair of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee

=====================================================

Politician’s name / position / email address

Date

Dear

The Federal Court on July 18 quashed the declaration of a proposed national nuclear waste dump site near Kimba in SA, citing ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’. The court case was initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners, who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear dump.

I’m writing to ask you to contact your federal Labor colleagues ‒ in particular Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and resources minister Madeleine King ‒ asking them to respect the human rights of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and to abandon the plan to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.

These are some of the reasons why it would be unfair and unwise to continue to attempt to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country:

1. It is an unacceptable that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
2. It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. Jayne Stinson, Labor Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous.”
3. It is unacceptable that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ‒ which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”. It would be worse still for the Albanese Government to continue to violate the UN Declaration by continuing with its efforts to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.
4. Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Coalition government. An independent, professional ballot of Barngarla Traditional Owners found no support whatsoever for the proposed dump. Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
5. Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Coalition government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report. It is unacceptable that the Albanese Government has continued the previous government’s violation of the human rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, and it would be worse still if the Albanese Government continues to violate their rights by continuing with the Kimba nuclear dump proposal.
6. Dr. Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process” from start to finish that led to the nomination of the Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling process” which led to Kimba being targeted.
7. Dr. Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
8. After the July 18 Federal Court decision, Dr. Close called for the Albanese Government to abandon the Kimba dump proposal once and for all and to find a site with which has community acceptance. Dr Close noted that the previous Coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
9. At its state Convention in October 2022, SA Labor adopted a position that: “SA Labor Caucus supports a veto right for the Barngarla community on this facility. This aligns with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. More recently Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed that the South Australian Labor party strongly opposes this facility and still supports the right of the Barngarla people to have veto powers.”

Please call on the federal Albanese Government to:

1. Immediately announce that the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country will not proceed.
2. Adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the Government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines.
3. Review and amend the undemocratic, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Act, an earlier and similar version of which was described by Labor MPs as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”.
4. Hold the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency accountable for its racist, incompetent mismanagement of this issue.
5. Establish a national Independent Commission of Inquiry to map out a path forward for the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

NAME:

ADDRESS:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please write to federal Labor politicians calling on them to respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, to respect the Federal Court’s July 18 decision and to abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

1. Send individual emails (not a group email).
2. The politicians’ names and details ‒ including email addresses ‒ are reproduced below.
3. Sample text is copied below. You can use this text but feel free to edit and to add your own thoughts.
4. Make sure to add your name, address and email address at the bottom of your emails.
5. If you have time, please also send some emails to SA Labor politicians: relevant info is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/kimba-sa/

Thanks!

Friends of the Earth Nuclear-Free Campaign

https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste

————

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Please use the online contact form at:

https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

————

Linda.Burney.MP@aph.gov.au

Linda Burney MP

Minister for Indigenous Australians

————

senator.wong@aph.gov.au

Senator Penny Wong

Senator for South Australia

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for Foreign Affairs

————

senator.grogan@aph.gov.au

Senator Karen Grogan

Chair of Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Deputy Chair of Environment and Communications References Committee

————

Mark.Butler.MP@aph.gov.au, minister.butler@health.gov.au

Mark Butler MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

Deputy Leader of the House

————

trade.minister@dfat.gov.au, senator.farrell@aph.gov.au

Senator Don Farrell

Special Minister of State

Minister for Trade and Tourism

Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate

————

Madeleine.King.MP@aph.gov.au

Madeleine King MP

Minister for Resources

Minister for Northern Australia

————

Minister.husic@industry.gov.au

Ed Husic MP

Minister for Industry and Science

===========================================

Politician’s name / position / email address

Date

Dear

The Federal Court on July 18 quashed the declaration of a proposed national nuclear waste dump site near Kimba in SA, citing ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’. The court case was initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners, who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear dump.

Please reassure me that the federal Labor Albanese Government will respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, respect the Federal Court’s decision, and abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

The Albanese Government could appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court. These are some of the reasons why that would be unfair and unwise:

1. It is an unacceptable that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
2. It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. Jayne Stinson, Labor Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous.”
3. It is unacceptable that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ‒ which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”. It would be worse still for the Albanese Government to continue to violate the UN Declaration by continuing with its efforts to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.
4. Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Coalition government. An independent, professional ballot of Barngarla Traditional Owners found no support whatsoever for the proposed dump. Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
5. Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Coalition government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report. It is unacceptable that the Albanese Government has continued the previous government’s violation of the human rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, and it would be worse still if the Albanese Government continues to violate their rights by continuing with the Kimba nuclear dump proposal.
6. Dr. Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process” from start to finish that led to the nomination of the Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling process” which led to Kimba being targeted.
7. Dr. Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
8. After the July 18 Federal Court decision, Dr. Close called for the Albanese Government to abandon the Kimba dump proposal once and for all and to find a site with which has community acceptance. Dr Close noted that the previous Coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
9. At its state Convention in October 2022, SA Labor adopted a position that: “SA Labor Caucus supports a veto right for the Barngarla community on this facility. This aligns with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. More recently Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed that the South Australian Labor party strongly opposes this facility and still supports the right of the Barngarla people to have veto powers.”

I call on the Albanese Government to:

1. Immediately announce that the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country will not proceed.
2. Adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the Government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines.
3. Review and amend the undemocratic, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Act, an earlier and similar version of which was described by Labor MPs as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”.
4. Hold the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency accountable for its racist, incompetent mismanagement of this issue.
5. Establish a national Independent Commission of Inquiry to map out a path forward for the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

NAME:

ADDRESS:

EMAIL ADDRESS: