Response to Osborne Submarine Construction Yard Strategic Assessment

March 25, 2025

Our recommendations:

1. Correct the factual errors regarding the effects of radiation.

2. Include active commissioning in the assessment.

3. Include the disposal of radioactive waste in the assessment and publish plans for management, storage and disposal of all streams of radioactive waste, including intermediate and high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.

4. Include a proper analysis of the risks and consequences of incidents and accidents that could lead to a release of radioactive material into the environment.

5. Inform the public about the potential for exposure to radiation and the levels of radiation they could be exposed to.

6. The Commonwealth Government should consult with other levels of government, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, emergency services and with the general public to develop a response plan for radiological emergencies.

7. Publish the Strategic Assessment Plan before finalizing the Strategic Impact Assessment Report.

Read our full submission:

250314AUKUS SIA – FoEAdelaide

Adelaide FoE Notes, Nuclear

Response to Submarine Construction Yard Environmental Impact Statement

March 25, 2025

Our submission raised questions about assumptions made about the nuclear submarine agreements:

“The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is premised on the assumption that the proposed AUKUS nuclear submarines are in Australia’s strategic interest (pp. 9-10) and South Australia’s economic interests (pp. 12-13). Both these premises are false.

Many highly qualified defence experts argue that nuclear submarines are not in Australia’s strategic interest. [1]
Along with these experts, and retired senior politicians like Paul Keating, Gareth Evans and Malcolm Turnbull, we believe that Australia will be less safe if it acquires nuclear powered submarines. Although it is the federal government that has made this strategic blunder, the EIS should not lend it any credence (as in section 1.5.4).

…

AUKUS submarines will also be prejudicial to our economic interest. Some of the abovementioned analysts don’t think Australia will actually ever get the promised nuclear submarines, certainly not in a reasonable time frame. This is a view not restricted to left-leaning people. Conservative commentator Greg Sheridan has criticised AUKUS for this reason.[2]”

 

[1] Hugh White, “From the submarine to the ridiculous”, The Saturday Paper, 18 September 2021 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine-the-ridiculous/163188720012499#mtr
Major General Michael G Smith AO (Ret’d), ‘How should Australia defend itself in the 21st century? Silencing the drums and dogs of war’, The New Daily, May 26, 2023 https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2023/05/26/how-should-australia-defend-itself-in-the-21st-century-silencingthe-drums-and-dogs-of-war/
Sam Roggeveen, ‘Spiky questions remain for AUKUS proponents’, Inside Story, 19 March 2024 https://insidestory.org.au/spiky-questions-remain-for-aukus-proponents/

[2] Greg Sheridan, ‘Our nuclear subs fantasy adds up to military net zero’, The Australian, 6 October 2021. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/our-nuclear-subs-fantasy-adds-up-to-military-net-zero/newsstory/cec3b5e94c5bacac405a5eb535b3a628

Read our full submission:

250314AUKUS EIS – FoEAdelaide

 

Adelaide FoE Notes, Nuclear

Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties re “Agreement … for Cooperation related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion”

March 25, 2025

Philip White wrote a detailed submission, which he summarises:

“We strongly believe that the Agreement should not be entered into in the first place. The proposal for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines should be rejected on security, safety, nuclear non-proliferation, environmental and economic grounds. Given that both sides of politics have committed themselves to these submarines, it would take some political courage to reverse course. If the government does not have enough political courage to make the right decision now, then it should encourage the US and UK governments to do the arithmetic and quickly come to the conclusion that they can’t build submarines fast enough to supply Australia without degrading their own nuclear propulsion programs. The quicker everyone acknowledges this and exercises their right to terminate the Agreement, the less money will be wasted.”

The full submission can be downloaded:

240826JSCOTSubmission – FoEAdelaide

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE, Nuclear

Submission to House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

March 25, 2025

Many independent experts have pointed to the unrealistic time frame, the high cost and financial risk, and the increase in Australia’s carbon emissions that it would entail. We provide extensive references to such expert analysis and to international experience in support of our arguments against the nuclear option.

Nuclear power could not contribute to the decarbonisation of the energy system for at least two decades, but in the meantime it would deter investment in renewables and storage. The transformation to a zero emissions energy system based on renewables and storage is a complex long-term project that must not be de-railed by nuclear distractions.

— from the summary of our submission to The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

 

SubmissionToNuclearEnergyInquiry-FoEAdelaide

Adelaide FoE Notes, Nuclear

Boothby campaign: Renewables or Nukes

February 24, 2025

Friends of the Earth Adelaide would like to announce a new campaign to inform residents in the electorate of Boothby (SA, marginal ALP) of the dangers of the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy.
We will soon begin posting leaflets in as many letterboxes in Boothby as our legs and our finances will reach. As much as we can afford, we will use Australia Post’s ‘unaddressed mail’ service, but that is not cheap. We are therefore calling for volunteers to help us deliver leaflets by hand.
The outcome of the forthcoming federal election will be critical for the direction of Australia’s climate and energy policy. It is vital that voters know what they are voting for and understand the consequences.  Limited resources will probably restrict us to Boothby, but we are very pleased that people are campaigning in other electorates, including the neighbouring electorate of Sturt.
The electorate of Boothby extends from Millswood and Blackforest in the north, west to the coast at Glenelg, south to Marino, east across to Blackwood, Belair and Brownhill Creek, then north to Cross Road.
In order to reach the whole of Boothby (over 85,000 letterboxes), we will need donations and volunteers. If you are able to help with letterboxing, please send us an email at adelaide.office@foe.org.au  You don’t have to live in Boothby and you can deliver as many or as few leaflets as you like — no pressure. Leaflets will come in bundles of 100.
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to this campaign, please go to the following link
https://www.foe.org.au/donate_to_friends_of_the_earth_adelaide

Thank you for your support and for all the work you do to achieve a nuclear free, sustainable future.
Philip White on behalf of Friends of the Earth Adelaide.
Authorised by Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth 312 Smith St, Collingwood, VIC, 3066.
A full list of Boothby suburbs can be found at https://electorate.aec.gov.au/
A map can be found at https://www.aec.gov.au/redistributions/2017/sa/final-report/maps-data.html

Actions, Adelaide FoE Notes, Climate, FoE