Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Nuclear Submarines: answers to common questions

roman September 20, 2021

Following secret deliberations, this week, the Morrison government has announced that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Anti-nuclear movement stalwart, and Friends of the Earth National Nuclear campaigner, Dr. Jim Green, had these comments to common questions about the decision.

Are there alternatives?

Apart from the French built, fossil fuel diesel options already on the table, because the process has been entirely secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology to power submarines (South Korea’s choice after 30 months of comprehensive evaluation).

What about nuclear weapons and security?

Nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons notes: “Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”

Sign our petition to say no to nuclear subs

Take Action

The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people? What alternative locations have been considered, if any?

Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability with a nuclear submarine program? Do such deliberations explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton actively opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

Will this encourage the broader nuclear industry?

Then Defence Minister Christopher Pyne noted that in 2019 that Australia would be the only country in the world with nuclear submarines but no domestic nuclear industry to back them up.

All countries operating nuclear submarines (the five ‘declared’ weapons states plus India) have both nuclear power and weapons.

Building a domestic nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines would be astronomically expensive and problematic in other respects. Nuclear power is vastly more expensive than renewables — and significantly more expensive than renewables plus backup stored power (batteries, pumped hydro storage, etc.)

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese says that Labor support for nuclear submarines is conditional on there being no requirement for a domestic civil nuclear industry (among other conditions).

What about nuclear waste?

The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.

No country in the world has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world ? the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US, for disposal of long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste ? was shut down from 2014 to 2017 following a chemical explosion in a waste barrel, with costs estimated at $2 billion (clean-up, lost income etc).

Waste from a nuclear submarine program would be dumped on Aboriginal land, as is the case with the federal government’s current plan to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Kimba in SA despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It speaks volumes about the crude racism of the federal and SA Coalition governments that they are prepared to ignore unanimous Aboriginal opposition to a nuclear dump. The federal government even fought to exclude Traditional Owners from a so-called ‘community survey’. SA Labor’s policy is that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear facility including a nuclear waste dump.

Friends of the Earth Australia was forged in nuclear resistance,
and we reject the radioactive racism of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
Nuclear submarines is no different.
#Auspol #NuclearIsSUBpar #NoNukes pic.twitter.com/YFbmciTRKH
— Friends of the Earth (@FoEAustralia) September 16, 2021

Can we afford this?

The high-level and long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear submarines would cost tens of billions of dollars to dispose of, based on cost estimates overseas. For example, the cost estimate for a high-level repository in France is A$40 billion. The US government estimates that to build a high-level nuclear waste repository and operate it for 150 years would cost A$130 billion. The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated a cost of A$145 billion over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning of a high-level nuclear waste repository.

It is highly unlikely that the government has considered these massive long-term costs in its secret deliberations.

Do I get a say in all this?

A 2019, a federal government-dominated parliamentary committee released a report on nuclear power titled ‘Not without your approval’. The report emphasised that nuclear power would not be pursued without community support.

But now, the federal government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines and any consultation will likely be tokenistic. This is the DAD — Decide, Announce, Defend — approach which is the antithesis of good government.

Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear submarines could easily collapse for any number of reasons — economics, the availability of superior options, public and political opposition etc.

Premier Marshall should stand up for our State

roman July 5, 2021

David Noonan, a Voice of the No Dump Alliance writes:

Premier Marshall should stand up for our State:

Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA

Premier Stephen Marshall must stand up for South Australia’s interests and push back on federal Liberal government imposition of an unlawful nuclear waste dump in our State.

The Premier has a duty to respect and uphold the law in SA that prohibits the import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste in our State.

The NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000 was passed by the SA Parliament under the leadership of Liberal Premier John Olsen and strengthened by Labor Premier Mike Rann:

The objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.

As Premier you should give all South Australian’s a Say and take action to instigate a required public inquiry into the impacts of a nuclear waste storage facility on the environmental and socio-economic wellbeing of this State.

The NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000, Section 14 states:

If a licence, exemption or other authority to construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility in this State is granted under a law of the Commonwealth, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament must inquire into, consider and report on the likely impact of that facility on the environment and socio-economic wellbeing of this State.

The Port of Whyalla is targeted for shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and communities along proposed nuclear waste transport routes across our State all have a right to have a Say.

Nuclear waste dumping is a Human Rights issue for our fellow Indigenous South Australian’s. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Stephen Marshall should support the Barngarla People’s right to say No to nuclear waste storage on their country:

The “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People” (2007) Article 29 calls on States “to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous material shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free prior and informed consent.”

The federal Liberal government proposes to ship and truck nuclear waste across SA into indefinite above ground storage in a fancy shed at Napandee on Eyre Peninsula – without any capacity or even a plan for its eventual permanent disposal.

SA’s clean green reputation, and our prime agricultural lands and farming communities, deserve better than untenable imposition of toxic nuclear wastes in a shoddy reckless federal plan to park and dump wastes that require isolation from the environment for 10,000 years.

95 per cent of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) in Australia are owned by Commonwealth government agencies, the vast majority is produced and held at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor facility in Sydney – where it should stay in secure extended storage.

The federal Budget provided $60 million for further decades of extended storage capacity for ILW at ANSTO Lucas Heights, building onto the operation of existing stores to 2026.
In 2015 a separate Interim Waste Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste was built at Lucas Heights with a design capacity for 40 years. This store received a shipment of reprocessed nuclear fuel waste from France in 2015 and is intended to now receive a shipment from the UK in 2022, and is safety rated to 2055.
The CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA stated in evidence to a Senate Inquiry in 2020: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”

The federal Liberal government proposes to bring all these nuclear wastes to SA, along with decades of ANSTO’s further proposed nuclear waste production and future shipments of ANSTO reprocessed nuclear waste from France.

Premier – Stand up for our State!

Clean Futures, Nuclear

Stop the nuclear dump! Don’t dump on SA!

roman July 1, 2021

Please join us this Friday, July 2 to voice opposition to the Morrison government’s plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump near Kimba in SA.
The nuclear dump is unwanted, unnecessary and unsafe.
It is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners and many other South Australians.

When: Friday July 2, 1 pm for 1.30 start to 3pm

Where: Steps of Parliament House on North Terrace

Some things you can do to help stop the imposition of the proposed nuclear dump:

* Donate to the Barngarla crowdfunder to fund a legal challenge (judicial review).

* Sign the Barngarla petition

* Sign the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) petition

* Join the Adelaide-based ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ group, we meet on zoom every Tuesday (or sometimes every second Tuesday). Contact: jim.green@foe.org.au, 0417 318368

Actions, Nuclear, Old_Notes

A Law Against Ecocide

roman June 29, 2021

From the Press Release by the Stop Ecocide Foundation:

The Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation has completed its deliberations. The proposed definition of ecocide as a 5th crime under the Rome Statute is now available for states to consider – and for civil society to demand. We think the drafting panel has achieved something remarkable – we love this legal definition! It’s well pitched between what needs to be done to protect ecosystems and what will be acceptable to states – it’s both bold and workable at same time. Governments and activists alike will take it seriously.

You can find the full text of the definition with accompanying commentary HERE and on the newly launched Ecocide Law website, an academic and legal resource hub we are co-managing with the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law. There is also an additional FAQ page.

Earth Jurisprudence, Environmental Law, Old_Notes

Traditional owners can challenge nuclear waste dump on Country