Publications

Friends of the Earth Adelaide > Publications

Public comment on EPBC Act referral

March 19, 2022

Referral:
EPBC 2021/9128 — National Radioactive Waste Management Facility NRWMF, SA
Submission by Philip White, Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Introduction

In response to the question raised in the Minister for the Environment’s invitation for comments, the proposed action is a controlled action. It is acknowledged as such by the proponent, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA).

Establishing that fact may be the formal aim of this particular part of the assessment process, but, before the proposal can proceed, it must be subjected to a full public Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
It should not be approved based solely on documentation provided by ARWA, or anything less than an Environmental Impact Assessment, for reasons including the following:

  • The wastes that will be stored and/or disposed of need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years. The long timescale greatly increases the opportunity for foreseen and unforeseen environmental impacts.

  • The transport of radioactive waste over thousands of kilometres represents a serious environmental hazard. Besides problems related to mishandling, there is the potential for various types of transport accidents. Radioactive waste shipments are also potential targets of theft, terrorism, or even, as we are currently seeing in Ukraine, acts of war.

  • The fact that the Barngarla traditional owners are opposed to the plan makes it even more important that aboriginal heritage issues are thoroughly addressed.

Recommendations

1. The referral should be rejected because (a) it is clearly opposed by the Barngarla people, the Traditional Custodians, and (b) there are better alternatives that have not been presented for consideration.

2. If, despite the arguments in recommendation 1 for rejecting the referral outright, the Minister decides not to reject the referral, it should not be accepted in its current form, based on s74A of the EPBC Act, which allows the Minister to not accept a referral if it is a component of a larger action.… Read more >>

FoE, Nuclear, Old_Notes

Morrison backs fossil fuels over farmers

November 19, 2021

The Morrison government’s modelling of its emissions reduction “plan” reveals how the government has chosen fossil fuels over farmers, how it plans to grow – not shrink – Australia’s fossil gas industry and how it fails to deliver on a claimed commitment to reaching zero net emissions by 2050.

[…]

The government’s chosen path does not spell out how Australia would get to net zero emissions in 2050. Instead, a so-called “Plan” maps a path for Australia to cut domestic emissions by around 60 per cent, a further 25 per cent of Australia’s emissions being offset with credits purchased from overseas.

[…]

The modelling highlights how the government is counting on a substantial and ongoing role for Australia’s fossil fuel industries – with the gas industry expected to grow by 13 per cent out to 2050.
While the coal sector is projected to decline in coming decades, it will still be operating at around 50 per cent of its current capacity in 2050, with Australia maintaining its position as a major global exporter of both coal and gas.

[…] the Morrison government considered an alternate scenario, which evaluated the potential outcomes of Australia achieving the complete 100 per cent reduction in net emissions by 2050.

This scenario would see Australia increase its investment in domestic carbon sequestration, achieved primarily through increased re-vegetation of Australian land (and not the government’s favoured carbon capture and storage technology).

The modelling found that setting a more ambitious target – one that gets Australia all the way to full net zero by 2050 – would have a negligible impact on the Australian economy, amounting to just a 0.01 per cent change in GDP by 2050, which is meaningless for a projection three decades into the future.

The more ambitious scenario, as one might expect, has a more detrimental impact on the coal and gas sectors, with the modelling estimating that a complete net zero pathway would “have adverse impacts on fossil fuel based sectors, with $4.9 billion lower output value from coal and gas in 2050 relative to the Plan.”

… Read more >>

Climate, Old_Notes

Victoria joins NSW in saying no to “Coalkeeper”

September 23, 2021

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor’s plans to introduce a new capacity market mechanism that would favour legacy coal generators appears in tatters after Victoria joined New South Wales in rejecting the idea dubbed “Coalkeeper.”

The opposition from the two key states – and the two biggest state grids in the country – comes ahead of a key meeting of federal and state energy ministers next Friday, and leaves the market unsure what, if any, new rules will be agreed in the Post2025 design being co-ordinated by the Energy Security Board.

The proposals for the “physical retail reliability option” have been described as “technology neutral” by Taylor and the ESB, but the market is convinced that they would effectively pay coal and gas generators paid to remain open, and Victorian energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said she would have none of that.

“Victoria wants to reassure investors in wind and solar farms and storage such as giant batteries that it will not adopt any mechanism within the NEM that undermines the state’s ambition to cut carbon emissions,” D’Ambrosio said in a statement.
— Michael Mazengarb & Giles Parkinson, reneweconomy, Sept 17th for the full story

Clean Futures, Old_Notes, Renewables

Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him

September 20, 2021

Prime minister Scott Morrison insisted on Thursday morning that the landmark nuclear submarine deal struck with US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia.
“Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. And we will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” Morrison said.
On the issue of nuclear power plants, don’t believe him. Morrison could hardly have said anything else. It’s one thing to announce a switch to nuclear powered submarines without any broad social discussion, but quite another to commit the country to nuclear power.
But the pro-nuclear lobby – both within and without the federal Coalition government – won’t be able to help themselves, even if the reality is that the sub construction won’t likely even start for the best part of a decade, and be complete for at least another 10 years after that, such is the complexity of the technology.
The nuclear lobby will say it is bizarre that Australia could be the only country in the world planning to sustain a nuclear powered submarine fleet without a civil nuclear industry. Even the retired Admiral Chris Barry noted that the absence of a civil nuclear industry left a “big gap” for Australia to manage a submerged nuclear fleet.

Giles Parkinson, Reneweconomy

Nuclear, Old_Notes