SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – update
Today the Expert Advisory Committee of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was announced. The members include Dr Tim Stone (University College London, KPMG), Prof Ian Lowe (my co-author Why vs Why: Nuclear Power), Dr Leanna Read (Chief Scientist of SA), Mr John Carlson (formerly of ASNO), and me (Barry Brook). I look forward to engaging in a productive, evidence-based process with my colleagues.
The first Issues Papers has also been released today Exploration, Extraction and Milling. Further papers will be released in the coming weeks, and then there will be 90 days open for submissions. The RC will report to the SA Government within just over a year: by May 2016.
Congratulations, Barry.
I look forward to this Royal Commission very much, in anticipation that all submissions that are not fully justified by evidence will be set aside.
That will be an historical first for the Australian energy debate.
Is there a public explanation as to what standard of evidence is required?
So pleasing that the committee hasn’t been stacked with anti nucleoids…
Barry, congratulations on getting nominated. I’m sure you will have some robust dialogue with Ian Lowe.
Good to hear, Barry! Some real talent there, and the opportunity to show up nonsense.
Also congrats on Ecomodernist Manifesto – a real breath of fresh air!
Ian Lowe is great on so many other areas. It’s a shame he’s ideologically set against the most abundant baseload replacement for coal that exists!
Yes, I can sleep a little easier knowing you are on the committee.
But I’m wondering why I bothered registering on the Royal Commision website to be kept informed and then hearing nothing at all! I rang them and they assured me I was registered, but I’ve got nothing. Zip. Lucky I’m still getting BNC information 🙂
Looks like a balanced panel, Barry, with some good choices except for Ian Lowe who is a prominent anti-nuclear opponent. I hope it’s not like the Security Council where some members have a veto. My expectations have always been low for a positive outcome for this Royal Commission, although I respect former Governor Kevin Scarce for his integrity and nous. I have made a submission and await the outcome with interest. Best wishes for your discussions!
Congratulations. As work progresses, would you consider holding seminars, perhaps by video link on your work?
Regards
David
David Lieberman
Director
Fipra Australia http://www.fipra.com
M: +61 407702301
T: +61 2 9231 4390
F: +61 2 9230 0167
E: [email protected]
Fipra Australia Pty Ltd, Level 4, 12 O’Connell St, SYDNEY, NSW AUSTRALIA
ABN 50 078 482 596
EMAIL DISCLAIMER The information contained in this transmission is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the named recipient(s) only. If you have received it in error, please do not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use the information contained in this transmission. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. Fipra reserves the right to monitor e-mail communications through its networks.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Congratulations Professor! Your long-practiced communication skills, patience and energy numeracy will be invaluable to this process.
I suspect Lowe’s standard schtick (anti-nuclear anecdote, laugh track, no further investigation of the issue, next objection – as highlighted by Michael Angwin all those years ago) won’t serve so well in the coming months.
Congratulations Barry. This is good news. No matter what the the final outcome, the process will be enlightening for Australia. The more publicity the better.
My interest, as always, will be in the economics..
I add my own congratulations Barry your appointment to the panel is well deserved as your comments and conclusions are always backed by evidence and data. Dr Tim Stone is an interesting choice but appears to have considerable experience in the development of sustainable energy policy, see this Sacome presention.
Let’s not make Prof Lowe the enemy here.
Reason, science and comprehension is hard to come by in anti-nuclear circles, but I think Ian Lowe is different. Wrong, but different.
Ian offers a flexibility on new evidence, and a calm disposition. If he didn’t have ties with backward organisations, he’d have the freedom and intelligence to change his mind.
In any case, I congratulate Tim, Ian, Leanna, John and Barry on their membership of the Commitee and I wish each of them the best of luck on a difficult job.
Best, Paul
Yes and my best wishes also. If we take a serious look at the life cycle Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of the renewable energy options quite a few being promoted are simply not viable.
Should ‘ASNO’ in reference to John Carlson be ‘ANSTO’?
@Duffer70, welcome back. — ASNO polices the rules set by policy, whereas ANSTO does the science. If only ANSTO were to set the guidelines, and ASNO were to police science-based rules !
Yes, a good one Barry. But Lowe should NOT be on the panel. When I asked him at the Nuclear for Australia symposium in Sydney in 2013, why 17 additional countries were at that stage building nuclear reactors, the best he could do was to reply that 150 other countries weren’t building them. The fact that those countries wanted a base load supply of electricity without greenhouse emissions seemed to have slipped his mind. Rather careless in my view, especially from an Emeritus professor. Definitely a poor choice for the panel.
Why the anti-Lowe sentiment if it’s a fact based process?
So there are no representatives of ANSTO on the Expert Advisory Panel at all? That strikes me as a curious omission.
@PaulM: Ian has the freedom to change his mind any time. Personally I lost my considerable respect for him when he compared 1GW of rooftop PV with a large nuclear power station in a Punch article some years back. I can forgive journalists who make such an error out of ignorance, but he knew exactly what he was doing.
Exactly, Geoff. No, he’s not the enemy (thinking in those terms will do more harm than good) but along with reconsidering the science he should reconsider such willingness to exploit the general publics lack of understanding of technology differences.
Advocating for nuclear goes hand in hand with advocating for energy numeracy.
Besides, if every GW of nuclear had the same legislated grid priority as every GW of solar when generating, we’d be seeing considerably swifter climate action.