On the report; I really liked this bit:
“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.”
FFS Widely believed by whom? “several years to decades”????
Thos coots are totally insane.
Huggy

For the good oil on the fate of the bad water of the (geothermal) renewable energy sink that will be the beverley mine, here’s the Rann govt’s EPA review that i guess was enough to convince Garrett it was reasonably probably safe to give it a tick.
It sounds like the nasty acidic radioactive water will be pumped back into a layer that’s got stock water above, and the GAB below. If the phrase “not reasonably probable” is meant to sound reassuringly and rigorously scientific, it doesn’t work for me.

Today’s new word: aquitard.

Petratherm geothermal aims to initially provide electricity to the local growing needs of the Beverley Uranium Mine, from around 7.5 MW building to 30 MW – and then to expand to around 520 MW and supplying the Australina National Electrcity Market, via two entry points, namely, Port Augusta and Olympic Dam”.

Any bets which one, the town or the gigantic mine, that gets connected first?
And what a filthy operation Garrett OK’d in giving Beverley the nod:

Thirty years after his first anti-uranium benefit gig at Sydney Town Hall, Environment Minister Peter Garret approved the expansion of the Beverley Uranium mine in South Australia…Large quantities of sulphuric acid are pumped directly into the underground water aquifer to make the uranium soluble. The solution is returned to the surface, the uranium is removed for processing and the remains are pumped back into the water table… highly acidic and radioactive as radionuclides and other heavy metals, once dormant in sand granules, are mobilised…. Acid in-situ leaching is a technique not used anywhere in the OECD due to its shocking record of groundwater contamination, and will ultimately result in turning the Beverley aquifer into a liquid radioactive waste dump. To extract a tonne of yellowcake here takes 18 tonnes of sulphuric acid and a tonne of hydrogen peroxide, not to mention the extreme cost of water.”

Oh yes…the beverley aquifer sits on top of the great artesian basin.
Onya Pete, looking after the party’s South Australian electoral chances like a genuine troglodyte good ole boy party faithful:
“Mr Rann will tell China’s mining leaders that South Australia has 50 percent of the world’s known uranium resources… said China’s decision to massively expand its nuclear power program means South Australia is in ‘pole position’ for uranium exports. “In addition to the giant Olympic Dam uranium resource, we have a range of new uranium mines being developed and proposed, plus 81 uranium exploration licences now issued in South Australia. Overturning the Australian Labor Party’s national ‘no new mines’ uranium policy means the brakes are off and South Australia is way ahead of other States”
It’s not like SA has no other economic base that’s it’s beholden to the uranium industry… hell, there’s Coopers, and lotsa prestige plonks and ….

Brumby’s Victorian Labor government has ticked off on another coal fired power plant

I didn’t think anyone could be so stupid, but coming to think of it Bligh is likely to do the same, or maybe just gas.

Oh yes, and wait until people work out what BHP Billiton is really going to do at Olympic Dam.

Hmmn. Tell me again when emissions are supposed to start going down? They just don’t get it.

Like Helen said, we need a mix of renewable energy (and low emissions such as geothermal) solutions.

Garrett killed the solar scheme because it was too successful. They need to keep cash handy to pony up the $18b in free permits for the poor fossil fuel industries that so desperately need Corporate Welfare funded by us the taxpayers.

Still waiting for Garrett to do something notable, but I suspect I will be waiting in vain. This more clear evidence that “politics us usual” won’t solve climate change.

What about “rooftop solar, in conjuntion with a whole grab-bag of other renewable power generation measures, improved building and design, and a culture of energy conservation, can play a role in solving our energy problems”? Must we always deal in these false dichotomies?