TODAY. Japan – the return of the “Nuclear Village”?
A first in Japan – The municipal assembly of Genkai in southwestern Japan will request a survey to see if their area is suitable for an underground disposal site for highly radioactive waste. When the Mayor approves this survey, the Saga Prefecture town, will receive up to 2 billion yen ($12.9 million) in state subsidies for allowing the survey.
Local business associations had submitted separate requests for the survey to the assembly, hoping the subsidies and survey activity will prop up the local economy. The associations called on the town, as already a host of a nuclear power plant, to proactively cooperate with the central government.
That would be just the start. The nuclear lobby everywhere is well experienced in arranging “community benefits”. And in nowhere better than Japan.
It starts with the catch-cry of “Jobs Jobs” – first in the construction industry, then in the operations of the nuclear facility, local contractors, and then onward – to the promise of enlivening the local economy. But this wonderful goal is also to be achieved by all sorts of grants and subsidies – “incentives for acceptance” -in Japan Japan: “siting promotion subsidy” – community funds for local development.
For Japan, this could be back to the bad old days.
in the late 1990s, Iida Tetsunari3 coined the term ‘nuclear village’ to describe the ‘syndicate’ of actors pushing Japan’s nuclear power program – institutional and individual pro-nuclear advocates in the utilities, the nuclear industry, the bureaucracy, the Diet (Japan’s parliament), business federations, the media, and academia.
The influence of the nuclear industry over government and the judiciary was powerful and involved ‘regulatory capture’ – industry influence over safety regulation. In safety-related class-action lawsuits, the courts tended to decide in line with government interests to further develop Japan’s nuclear power program
Beyond just “normalisation” of areas hosting nuclear facilities, the “nuclear village” became a celebration of the wonderful, positive role of the nuclear industry in Japanese life, lauded in politics, business, and. education.
That worked out well for Japan, (and for the USA) – in Japan’s great industrial leap forward, and in overcoming and atoning for that old nuclear disaster – the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s success became a pointer towards other nuclear villages.
But then came the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, – and it all ground nearly to a halt. Public opposition to nuclear power has held the industry back over the years since.
But the small global phalanx of nuclear promoters continues to work assiduously to control public opinion. It preys on people’s fear of global heating, and on fears of economic downturn, and promotes nuclear facilities as ‘the answer”. It looks as if that message might now be being heard by at least one municipality in Japan.
Could this be the start of Japan’s nuclear village all over again?
Dutton’s atomic bet threatens Coalition chain reaction over climate
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project. One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Rather than keep the heat on Labor’s handling of cost-of-living pain as inflation stays high, the opposition leader’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/dutton-s-atomic-bet-threatens-coalition-chain-reaction-over-climate-20240425-p5fml7 Jacob Greber Senior correspondent, Apr 25, 2024
A golden rule in politics, attributed to Napoleon, is that you should never interrupt your enemy when they’re struggling or making mistakes.
Peter Dutton’s push to engineer an ambitious nuclear power policy that keeps the Coalition from fracturing over climate policy is as fine an example as you could hope to find of premature politicus interruptus.
Rather than keeping the heat on Labor’s handling of the economy and ongoing cost-of-living pain – see for instance this week’s diabolical inflation data that has all but killed off any interest rate relief this year – Dutton’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
It will shunt the Coalition into a realm in which it has to elaborate on its plans for emissions targets; clarify whether it has one for 2035, and come clean on whether it will crab walk away from the Paris Agreement altogether.
Pivoting to nuclear means the Coalition will very likely miss the nation’s current 2030 target (of cutting emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels). Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud both see nuclear as a way to slow or halt the rollout of renewables and new electricity transmission. The political contrast for voters will be that Labor is already executing a plan to reach that goal.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
It is not widely understood – as has been explained here before – that the 2030 target is an international promise that cannot be watered down. Setting sail on a policy that falls short, intentionally, is only possible by withdrawing from Paris.
Dutton has not made clear where he stands on these questions, which are at the heart of the Coalition’s current deliberations. There is no internal consensus, either among Liberals or with the Nationals.
These are not waters that Dutton or Littleproud want to drift in for too long. For moderate Liberals – including those hoping to regain the seats they lost in 2022’s climate election – it should be ringing alarm bells.
Initially, Dutton’s go-big, go-nuclear policy venture was slated to be unveiled ahead of the budget, triggering internal consternation among those who felt they had not been directly consulted, particularly across the National Party which has not yet signed onto the idea of large-scale nuclear power generation.
And if they do, the Nationals will want Dutton to deliver the same mega-buck regional roads, dam and rail spending splurge that Barnaby Joyce secured in exchange for backing Scott Morrison over net zero by 2050 in the lead-up to the 2021 Glasgow Climate Conference.
Until now, Littleproud has kept the embers glowing by supporting small-scale nuclear reactors, so-called SMRs, which conjure benign images of unobtrusive remotely located generators no larger than a truck.
Both leaders mirrored the Coalition’s standing position, including under Morrison, of seeking to undo John Howard’s 25-year-old ban on nuclear. They stuck to a simple approach – one that most voters would have no issue with – of asking why the nation can’t have an adult “conversation” about the pros and cons of nuclear power?
This stance had the political benefit of sounding eminently sensible while being bereft of detail or real-world consequence. Such as where these things might be built. And at what cost.
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project.
One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
Old coal stations repurposed, in other words.
Yet after weeks of internal wrangling, the timeline for that announcement has blown out to some time after the May 14 budget. It may yet be buried entirely, say some observers, which would be hugely embarrassing for Dutton given how far he has already ventured.
The delay is also instructive of ongoing division over climate policy within the Coalition that has not been resolved since Morrison’s defeat two years ago by Labor and the teal independents who plundered the Liberal party’s inner-city crown jewels.
Significantly, many inside the Coalition fear the opposition leader’s nuclear push will become a self-inflicted political wedge.
Like John Hewson’s ill-fated 1993 “Fightback!” GST promise, or Bill Shorten’s bold policy platform in 2019, Dutton is seen to be at risk of “painting a big target on our backs”.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
Queensland Liberal National Party leader David Crisafulli’s repeated rejection of Dutton’s planned “nuclear renaissance” indicates he thinks it’s political suicide.
Every regional and marginal battleground seat can expect to be flooded with warnings about the dangers of nuclear energy, the risks of transporting uranium, and fights over where to store spent fuel.
Younger voters like Millennials are sensibly less allergic to the idea of nuclear energy than Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, especially those who popped their political cherries during the nuclear disarmament movements of the Cold War.
But once the question becomes about where to locate these things – when you ask the locals – support tends to slide.
And then there are the attendant details. How will a nuclear power program that will not become a reality for at least 15 to 20 years help coal power workers being displaced by plant closures meanwhile?
Nuclear baseload energy offers the prospect of many good things, including a manufacturing renaissance. But making things in the 2030s will be nothing like making things in the 1950s. Current trends suggest robots will do most of the work, not humans.
Dutton’s determination to press ahead on nuclear – there are no signs at this point of a backdown, but keep your eyes open – could turn out to be a massive stroke of political genius, or fatal hubris.
The opposition leader had every right to feel confident after last year’s Voice to parliament referendum outcome. Polls such as this week’s Resolve Political Monitor show voters are drifting back to the Liberals.
But that shift is happening before Dutton and the Liberal party have really defined themselves, or offered details of what a future Coalition government will look like.
The nuclear policy – and its consequences for the Coalition’s climate and energy stance – will fill that void as quickly as an atomic chain reaction.
Instead of a 2025 election strategy that rests on telling voters how bad Labor is while dispensing pork barrel promises to swing electorates, the Coalition will be in the business of having to explain a hugely expensive, risky and complicated policy.
That’s one hell of a punt.
Nuclear-waste dams threaten Central Asia heartland
Dams holding large amounts of nuclear waste can be found in Kyrgyzstan’s
scenic hills. However, following a 2017 landslide they have become
unstable, threatening a possible Chernobyl-scale nuclear disaster if they
collapse.
Reuters 24th April 2024
Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it
Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two.
The Bulletin, By Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill | April 26, 2024
On April 19, Israel carried out a strike deep inside Iranian territory, near the city of Isfahan. The attack was apparently in retaliation for a major Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel a few days earlier. This exchange between the two countries—which have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories—has raised fears of a potentially serious military escalation in the region.
Israel’s strike was carried out against an Iranian military site located in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. Although the attack did not target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, earlier reports suggested that Israel was considering such attacks. The Iranian leadership has, in turn, threatened to reconsider its nuclear policy and to advance its program should nuclear sites be attacked.
These events highlight the threat from regional escalation dynamics posed by Iran’s near-threshold nuclear capability, which grants Iran the perception of a certain degree of deterrence—at least against direct US retaliation—while also serving as an understandably tempting target for Israeli attack. As tensions between Israel and Iran have moved away from their traditional proxy nature and manifested as direct strikes against each other’s territories, the urgency of finding a timely and non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has increased.
A tempting target. While the current assessment is that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic maintains a very advanced nuclear program, allowing it to develop a nuclear weapons capability relatively rapidly, should it decide to do so. Iran’s “near-threshold” capability did not deter Israel from undertaking its recent attack. But Iran’s nuclear program is a tempting target for an attack that could have potentially destabilizing ramification: The program is advanced enough to pose a credible risk of rapid weaponization and at a stage when it could still be significantly degraded, albeit at an extremely high cost.
Iran views its nuclear program as a deterrent against direct US strikes on or invasion of its territory, acting as an insurance policy of sorts against invasion following erroneous Western accusations over its nuclear program, ala Iraq in 2003. That’s to say, during an attempted invasion, Iran could quickly produce nuclear weapons. This capability allows Iran’s leadership to engage in destabilizing activities in the region with a (perceived) limited likelihood of retaliation against its own territory. Concerns over escalation and a potential Iranian push toward weaponization of its nuclear program may have been one of multiple considerations that contributed to the US refusal to take part in Israeli retaliatory action following Iran’s April 13 strikes on Israel.
Israel sees the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat and has long sought its elimination. For this reason, reports that Israel might have been preparing to target Iranian nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran’s strikes against its territory came as little surprise. Israel’s attack on military installations near Iranian nuclear facilities—and against an air defense system that Iran has deployed to protect its nuclear sites—appears to have been calibrated precisely to make the point that Israel has the capability to directly attack heavily-protected nuclear sites deep inside Iran. Some commentators have speculated that subsequent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites may still be desirable or necessary.
In this context, Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two. Moreover, Israel may also conclude that its own undeclared nuclear capability has failed to act as a deterrent against two major assaults on its territory. The attacks by Hamas on October 7 and Iran on April 13 probably added to Israel’s sense of strategic vulnerability, although that perception may have been partly alleviated by the largely successful defense against Iran’s attempted drone and missile strikes.
Israel has historically targeted Iran’s nuclear program through relatively limited sabotage in the form of cyber-attacks, assassinations of scientists, and bombs placed at Iranian nuclear facilities. This strategy has allowed Israel to repeatedly roll the clock back on Iran’s nuclear progress while maintaining some level of credible deniability and avoiding further military escalation, therefore largely remaining within the “rules” established by Israel and Iran in conducting their shadow war. Now, with both countries openly striking each other’s territory, Israel may see this as an opportunity—or feel compelled—to target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly.
A range of bad options. The possibility of Iranian weaponization and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to a serious escalation spiral and, potentially, a wider military conflict in the region……………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/why-iran-may-accelerate-its-nuclear-program-and-israel-may-be-tempted-to-attack-it/
Thirty-eight years on, lessons from Chernobyl
DAVE SWEENEY, Australian Conservation Foundation, 26 April 24 https://www.acf.org.au/38-years-on-lessons-from-chernobyl
—
On 26 April 1986, an exercise at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine went badly wrong.
Operators lost control of the reactor unit and the cooling systems failed.
The rapid rise in pressure and heat caused a fire and an explosion that blew apart the reactor’s containment shield.
Uncontrolled radiation spewed from the plant and was carried in the smoke of the dark night sky over a swathe of eastern and western Europe, and far beyond.
Firefighters and emergency service responders were the first to fall.
They were followed by numerous ‘liquidators’ – army conscripts with scant training or safety gear – who were sent in to contain the contamination.
Tens of thousands of community members were relocated – some forcibly – from areas near the stricken reactor.
But greater distance did not neatly translate into lesser danger. The radiation plume was erratic and unpredictable, but always damaging.
Chernobyl starkly demonstrated that radiation does not respect political borders or need a passport to travel.
The last leader of the then Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, reflected that Chernobyl “was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later” and that the disaster “showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes. One could now imagine much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded.”
Thirty-eight years later, adverse health, economic and environmental impacts persist. The Chernobyl complex remains a radioactive running sore, complicated by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
There has also been active fighting at Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear plant and a disturbingly frequent battleground between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
Earlier this month the director-general of the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency spoke of a “major escalation of the nuclear safety and security dangers facing the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant” and a significant increase in “the risk of a major nuclear accident.”
Whether by accident in 1986 or artillery in 2024, there is no question nuclear power is the world’s most easily weaponised energy system. Reactors have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets.
On a good day nuclear power means high level radioactive waste. On a bad day Chernobyl. And the very bad day of nuclear weapons is the stuff of nightmares.
On the anniversary of Chernobyl and against a backdrop of deep global uncertainty and conflict, we need to heed the lessons of history and build a safer future.
US bases including Pine Gap saw Australia put on nuclear alert, but no-one told Gough Whitlam
“The Australian government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia. We honour agreements covering existing stations. We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones.” – Gough Whitlam
ABC News, By Alex Barwick for the Expanse podcast Spies in the Outback, 25 Apr 24
During the 1972 election campaign, Gough Whitlam promised to uncover and share Pine Gap’s secrets with Australians.(ABC Archives/Nautilus Institute)
When Australia was placed on nuclear alert by the United States government in October 1973, there was one major problem.
No-one had told prime minister Gough Whitlam.
One of the locations placed on “red alert” was the secretive Pine Gap facility on the fringes of Alice Springs.
Officially called a “joint space research facility” until 1988, the intelligence facility was in the crosshairs with a handful of other US bases and installations around Australia.
In fact, almost all United States bases around the world were placed on alert as conflict escalated in the Middle East. Whitlam wasn’t the only leader left out of the loop.
A prime minister in the dark
“Whitlam got upset that he hadn’t been told in advance,” Brian Toohey, journalist and former Labor staffer to Whitlam’s defence minister Lance Barnard, said.
Toohey said Whitlam should have been told that facilities including North West Cape base in Western Australia, and Pine Gap were being put on “red alert”.
“There had been a new agreement knocked out by Australian officials with their American counterparts, that Australia would be given advance warning.”
They weren’t.
Suddenly, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
Why were parts of Australia on ‘red alert’?
The Cold War superpowers backed opposing sides in the Yom Kippur War.
The Soviet Union supported Egypt and the United States was behind Israel.
As the proxy war escalated in October 1973, United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger believed the crisis could go nuclear and issued a DefCon 3 alert.
A DefCon 3 alert saw immediate preparations to ensure the United States could mobilise in 15 minutes to deliver a nuclear strike.
The aim was to deter a nuclear strike by the Soviets.
And, it simultaneously alerted all US bases including facilities in Australia that a nuclear threat was real.
This level of alert has only occurred a few times, including immediately after the September 11 attacks.
Politics, pressure and protest
The secretive intelligence facility in outback Australia caused Whitlam more trouble beyond the red alert.
During the 1972 election campaign, the progressive politician had promised to lift the lid on Pine Gap and share its secrets with all Australians.
“He gave a promise that he would tell the Australian public a lot more about what Pine Gap did,” Toohey said.
But according to Toohey, the initial briefing provided to Whitlam and Barnard by defence chief Arthur Tange left the prime minister with little to say.
“Tange came along and he said basically that there was nothing they could be allowed to say. And that was just ridiculous,” Toohey said.
“He said, the one thing he could tell them was the bases could not be used in any way to participate in a war. Well, of course they do.”
Whitlam would cause alarm in Washington when he refused to commit to extending Pine Gap’s future.
In 1974 on the floor of parliament he said:
“The Australian government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia. We honour agreements covering existing stations. We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones.”
According to Toohey, “the Americans were incredibly alarmed about that”.
“As contingency planning, the whole of the US Defence Department said that they would shift it to Guam, a Pacific island that America owned,” he said.
And the following year, allegations would emerge that the CIA were involved in the prime minister’s dismissal on November 11, 1975…………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/when-australia-was-put-on-nuclear-alert-expanse-podcast/103733194
National Party threatens to tear up wind and solar contracts as nuclear misinformation swings polls
The campaign against renewables and for nuclear has been based around misinformation, both on the cost and plans of renewables and transmission, and on the cost of nuclear power plants, which have stalled around the world because of soaring costs, huge delays, and because no small modular reactor has yet been licensed in the western world.
That campaign has been amplified by right wing “think tanks” and ginger groups, and the Murdoch media, and largely reported uncritically in other mainstream media. It appears to be having some traction.
Giles Parkinson, Apr 23, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nationals-threaten-to-tear-up-wind-and-solar-contracts-as-nuclear-misinformation-swings-polls/
National leader David Littleproud has threatened to tear up contracts for wind and solar farm developments, in the latest broadside against large scale renewable energy from the federal Coalition.
The remarks – reported by the Newcastle Herald and later verified by Renew Economy via a transcript – were made in a press conference last week in Newcastle, when Littleproud was campaigning against offshore wind projects and outlining the Coalition’s hope that it could build a nuclear power plant in the upper Hunter Valley.
The Coalition has vowed to stop the roll out of large scale renewables, and keep coal fired power plants open in the hope that they can build nuclear power plants – recognised around the world as the most expensive power technology on the planet – some time in the late 2030s and 2040s.
No one in the energy industry, nor large energy consumers for that matter, are the slightest bit interested in nuclear because of its huge costs and time it takes to build, and because it would set back Australia’s short term emissions reductions.
But the comments about contracts are the most sinister to date, and reflect the determination of a party leader who just a few years ago described renewables and storage as a “good thing”, including the huge wind and solar projects that are being built in his own electorate, to destroy the renewables industry.
The Newcastle Herald asked Littleproud if an incoming Coalition government would consider “tearing up contracts” for renewable infrastructure contracts that had already been signed.
“Well exactly,” Littleproud said. “We will look at where the existing government took contracts and at what stage they are at.
“There are some projects on land that we will have to accept, but we are not going to just let these things happen. If that means we have to pay out part of the contracts, and we will definitely look at that. You’re not going to sit here and say today that we’re stopping it and then not following through.”
The federal government this week announced the biggest ever auction of wind and solar in Australia, seeking six gigawatts of new capacity that will be underwritten by contracts written by the commonwealth.
This will see at least 2.2 GW of new wind and solar sourced in NSW, at least 300 MW in South Australia, already the country’s leader with a 75 per cent share of wind and solar in its grid, and multiple gigawatts spread over other states.
However, the Coalition’s nuclear plans are already facing delays, having pulled back from a previous commitment to deliver the nuclear policy before the May 14 federal budget. It now only promises to release the policy before the next election, with Littleproud telling Sky News on Monday that the party “would not be bullied” into an early release.
One of the many problems with its nuclear strategy will be finding sites for the proposed power plants. The Coalition has targeted the upper Hunter as one site, but AGL, the owner of the site that houses the now closed Liddell and the still operating Bayswater coal generators, has said it is not interested because it is focused on renewables and storage.
Littlepround, however, said there are other sites in the area that could be used, although the Newcastle Herald said he declined to nominate those sites. Inevitably, they would require new infrastructure.
The campaign against renewables and for nuclear has been based around misinformation, both on the cost and plans of renewables and transmission, and on the cost of nuclear power plants, which have stalled around the world because of soaring costs, huge delays, and because no small modular reactor has yet been licensed in the western world.
That campaign has been amplified by right wing “think tanks” and ginger groups, and the Murdoch media, and largely reported uncritically in other mainstream media. It appears to be having some traction.
According to an Essential Media poll published in The Guardian on Tuesday, 40 per cent of respondents ranked renewables as the most expensive form of electricity, 36 per cent said nuclear, and 24 per cent said fossil fuels.
The poll also found a majority (52%) of voters supported developing nuclear power for the generation of electricity, up two points since October 2023, and 31% opposed it, down two points.
The most recent GenCost report prepared by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, like other international studies, says that nuclear power costs nearly three times more than renewables, even counting the cost of storage and transmissions.
However, the Coalition – with the support of right wind media and agitators – have led relentless campaigns against the CSIRO and AEMO, even though their nuclear costs were based on the only SMR technology that has gotten close to construction, before being pulled because it was too expensive.
The push to stop renewables comes despite reports from both AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator that highlight how the growth in renewables has lowered wholesale power prices, despite extreme weather events and the impact of the unexpected outage of Victoria’s biggest coal generator.
The only state where wholesale electricity prices actually rose were in Queensland, which has the heaviest dependency on coal, although the state has just passed laws that lock in its 75 per cent emissions reduction target and its 80 per cent renewables target by 2030.
South Australia has already reached a 75 per cent wind and solar generation share in its grid, and aims to reach “net” 100 per cent by the end of 2027. It enjoyed the biggest fall in wholesale spot prices in the last quarter, which state minister Tom Koutsantonis said should be passed on to consumers.
“SA’s prices fell the most of any state, and the black coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW had the highest prices,” Koutsantonis said.
“These proven falls in wholesale prices are encouraging signs that we are on the right track. South Australia’s high proportion of renewables – which exceeded 75 per cent of generation in 2023 – is key to South Australian prices being far lower than the black-coal states of NSW and Queensland.
“Retail prices must fall because wholesale costs to retailers are going down.”
Biden signs $95bn aid bill to be sent ‘right away’ – for wars in Ukraine, Israel, and provocations in Taiwan
SOTT – Signs of the Times, BBC, Wed, 24 Apr 2024
US President Joe Biden has signed a $95bn (£76bn) package of aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
“It’s going to make America safer, it’s going to make the world safer,” he said after signing the bill into law.
The president said the US would “right away” send fresh weapons and equipment to Ukraine to help Kyiv fend off Russian advances.
Comment: The West has depleted much of its weapon stocks, so much of the money is to go to US weapons manufacturers to actually make the weapons, first.
He spoke a day after the US Senate approved the aid package following months of congressional gridlock.
Ukraine has recently stepped up its calls for Western assistance as Russia makes steady gains in its invasion.
Included in the package is $61bn in military aid for Ukraine. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 79-18.
Tuesday evening’s approval came after the measurepassed the US House of Representativeson Saturday.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “After more than six months of hard work and many twists and turns in the road, America sends a message to the entire world: we will not turn our back on you.”
Comment: They will, however, turn their backs on their own citizens.
Reacting to the vote, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said it “reinforces America’s role as a beacon of democracy and leader of the free world”.
The Senate passed a similar aid package in February, but a group of conservatives who oppose new Ukraine support had prevented it from coming to a vote in the House of Representatives.
Last week, Democrats and Republicans in the lower chamber joined together to bypass this opposition.
They ultimately agreed to a package bill that included the foreign aid as well as legislation to confiscate Russian assets held by Western banks; new sanctions on Russia, Iran and China; and a provision that will force the Chinese company ByteDance to sell the popular social media service TikTok.
Comment: The theft of Russian assets will backfire, both with Russia’s retaliation, and global investors who will be reluctant to operate in the US; as will the sanctions; and the control of TikTok only further serves as proof of America as a surveillance state
In the House on Saturday, a majority of Republicans in the chamber voted against the foreign aid package.
The bill also faced resistance among a handful of Senate Republicans who opposed any new aid to Ukraine.
Fifteen voted with two Democrats – as well as independent Senator Bernie Sanders who objected to providing new offensive weapons to Israel – against the bill.
“Pouring more money into Ukraine’s coffers will only prolong the conflict and lead to more loss of life,” Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville said in remarks on Tuesday.
“No-one at the White House, the Pentagon, or the state department can articulate what victory looks like in this fight.”
The aid package is expected to provide a significant boost to Ukraine’s forces, which have suffered from a shortage of ammunition and air defence systems in recent months.
On Tuesday, Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, faced the latest in a series of recent drone and missile strikes, with authorities saying two people in a residential neighbourhood were injured.
The commander of Ukraine’s National Guard, Oleksandr Pivnenko, said he was expecting an attempt by Russian forces to advance on the city, which is near the Russian border.
Between February 2022 and January 2024, the US gave Ukraine more than $40bn in military aid, according to German research organisation, the Kiel Institute.
Comment: The EU has allocated 50 Billion euros of taxpayers money.
Aid for Israel and Taiwan
The foreign aid package passed on Tuesday also allocates $17bn to Israel, as well as $9bn for civilians suffering in conflict zones around the world, including Palestinians in Gaza.
Comment: So $17 billion to wage genocide, less than a few billion for those suffering from it?
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz reacted to the vote by thanking congressional leaders for their “unwavering commitment to Israel’s security”.
“Israel and the United States stand together in the fight against terrorism, defending democracy and our shared values,” he said.
The US already provides Israel with $3.8bn in military aid each year.
Over in Asia, a Chinese government spokeswoman called the military aid for Taiwan a “serious violation of the one-China principle” that would “send the wrong signal to the pro-independence separatist forces” in Taiwan.
“We urge the US to take practical actions to fulfil its commitment not to support Taiwan independence by not arming Taiwan in any way,” she said.
Taiwan’s incoming President William Lai said the aid package would “strengthen deterrence against authoritarianism”.
Taiwan is a self-governing island and considers itself distinct from China, but Beijing views it as a breakaway province and hopes to bring it back under its own control.
TikTok ban
The national security package also includes a provision that could lead to a nationwide ban on TikTok………………….. more https://www.sott.net/article/490878-Biden-signs-95bn-aid-bill-to-be-sent-right-away-for-wars-in-Ukraine-Israel-and-provocations-in-Taiwan
UN report demolishes Israeli propaganda campaign against UNRWA
Israel has waged a multi-year campaign against the UN aid group for Palestinian refugees in hopes of eradicating the right of return
The Cradle, News Desk, APR 22, 2024
Israel has failed to provide any evidence of its claims that employees of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) are members of “terrorist organizations,” according to an independent review led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna.
In January, Israel claimed without evidence that some UNRWA staff – until then the primary conduit of humanitarian aid into the besieged and bombed Gaza Strip – were members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and had participated in the Hamas-led attack on Israeli military bases and settlements on 7 October, known as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
The Israeli allegations promptly caused the US and other western nations to cut funding to UNRWA. This came amid reports from rights groups that Israel was using starvation as a weapon against the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza.
The Guardian reported on 22 April that the “Colonna report,” which was commissioned by the UN in the wake of Israeli allegations, found that UNRWA had regularly supplied Israel with lists of its employees for vetting, and that “the Israeli government has not informed UNRWA of any concerns relating to any UNRWA staff based on these staff lists since 2011.”
The Guardian added that most donor nations have resumed their funding in recent weeks. However, UK ministers had said they would wait for the Colonna report to decide whether to resume funding. The US Congress has since banned any future financial support of UNRWA.
The Colonna review was drafted with the help of three Nordic research institutes and will be published later on Monday.
It confirms that Israel has yet to provide any evidence of its claims………………………………………………..
more https://thecradle.co/articles/un-report-demolishes-israeli-propaganda-campaign-against-unrwa
Nuclear: In Flamanville, the EPR farce continues
During a meeting of the local information commission on April 12, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) assured that it could give the green light to the start-up of the reactor by the beginning of May. However, not all technical problems are resolved. And now a new one – of vibrations – appeared at the end of last year on the primary circuit. Revelations.
Blast, Thierry Gadault , 22 Apr 24
A few kilometers from the Flamanville nuclear power plant, Les Pieux (Manche) is typical of the many nuclear communities that we cross along the Rhône and Loire valleys: stone facades scrubbed with a toothbrush, paved sidewalks shiny as a new penny, innumerable municipal facilities that a town of some 3,500 inhabitants could never hope to afford, even in its wildest dreams, if it were not for the millions poured every year by EDF into the Department………………………..
Dialogue of the deaf in the basement
Behind the town hall, an old mansion which dominates the village, is the Pieux proximity center. In the basement of the building, which houses part of the municipal services, an auditorium with around fifty seats hosts the meetings of the Local Information Commission (CLI), a consultative body bringing together EDF, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), local elected officials, the State and association representatives.
April 12, 2024, there was a crowd for the extraordinary meeting of the CLI. The menu was potentially copious: it was a question of taking stock of the EPR, before the ASN gave the green light to EDF to install the nuclear fuel in the vessel. While the independent authority was in full public consultation (it ended on April 17), an essential prerequisite for its decision-making, the associations had obtained this appointment in the form of a last-chance meeting, to try to derail the process.
But neither the ASN representative, Gaëtan Lafforge, the head of the Caen division, nor that of EDF, Alain Morvan, the director of the Flamanville EPR project, had the intention of revealing the reality of the numerous problems which still affect the reactor. And it was a dialogue of the deaf that the participants engaged in.
On the ASN and EDF side, the speech can easily be summarized: officially, everything is in order and the objective is now to gradually bring the reactor to operate at full power, at the end of the year. The authority also specified that the green light will be given by the beginning of May. Alain Morvan, with slides reduced to the strict minimum, simply outlined the process of starting up the new reactor.
On April 12, questioned on this subject by Yannick Rousselet, nuclear safety consultant at Greenpeace, the ASN representative had the greatest difficulty in answering the question clearly. “I can’t tell you that there won’t be anything left, there could be possible deviations during the tests,” stammered Gaëtan Lafforge. This then led to a short lunar exchange with the anti-nuclear activist, which triggered laughter from the audience.
On the anti-nuclear activist side, the troops left after two hours with their questions. In particular, lo and behold, a new vibration problem on the primary circuit detected last year.
The information was given to Blast by Julien Collet, the deputy director general of ASN, during the authority’s annual press conference organized at the end of last January. The DGA then told us that EDF was in the process of investigating this umpteenth glitch on the EPR.
On April 12, questioned on this subject by Yannick Rousselet, nuclear safety consultant at Greenpeace, the ASN representative had the greatest difficulty in answering the question clearly. “I can’t tell you that there won’t be anything left, there could be possible deviations during the tests,” stammered Gaëtan Lafforge. This then led to a short lunar exchange with the anti-nuclear activist, which triggered laughter from the audience.
Strangely, Alain Morvan, who could have provided technical details, remained silent. And no one thought to give him the floor. Especially since the president of the CLI, perhaps impatient to go to lunch, hastened to close the session. Questioned by Blast after the meeting, the director of the EPR project, cornered by a member of EDF communications, refused to answer us.
Hardly any more luck with the Parisian communications department, a few moments later. “The vibrational issues have been dealt with and technical solutions put in place,” she simply responded in the usual wooden language. In short, move around, there is nothing to see.
Yes, but here it is: questioned by a journalist from Presse de la Manche, the local daily which covered the event, EDF gave another answer : “There is no new vibration subject,” said the electrician. to our colleague. Um… we should know: has the subject been covered or does it not exist?
It’s not me, it’s him !
To try to see things clearly, Blast turned to the Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), the public research establishment which provides technical advice to the ASN.
Perhaps concerned about its future – following the merger with the ASN imposed by the government and ratified by the National Assembly and the Senate – the establishment informed us through its press manager that the subject was not his responsibility. And to send us back to the ASN…
Unfortunately, ASN did not answer our questions. As Martine Aubry, the mayor of Lille and former candidate defeated in the 2011 socialist primary, said about François Hollande, “when it’s vague, there’s a wolf…”
The lid saga
This new problem… sorry “subject” vibration is therefore added to the numerous unresolved technical files that EDF has decided to leave as is, with the agreement of the ASN, to provide a response only after the commissioning of the reactor – it is unusual, we will agree. Starting obviously with the lid of the tank, weakened by a manufacturing defect (positive carbon segregation also present in the bottom of the tank). When the authority finally authorized the use of the tank and its lid in 2018, when it was no longer possible to exclude the risk of rupture but only to prevent it (which does not have the same meaning), she had asked EDF to change the cover no later than December 2024.
……………………………………..Questioned by activists to know why the company was not waiting for this new cover, Alain Morvan got confused in his explanations. He first suggested that it was not finished, and that it would therefore not be installed before the summer of 2025, before contradicting himself to finally assure that it would be delivered to the nuclear power plant at the end of the year…
In fact, the public group has nothing to do with it: in 2023, Framatome obtained from the ASN to postpone the replacement of the cover by one year, without giving any justification for such a postponement. According to the order issued by the authority last year, it must now be replaced during the first full inspection of the installation, after its start-up.
While it was possible to change this part in complete safety for the health of workers, if the new one had been installed before start-up, this postponement changes everything. The current cover will be irradiated and it will in fact become nuclear waste. In other words, an object that cannot be handled like that.
Apart from the fact that this unnecessarily exposes workers to taking doses during operations to replace it, this poses another problem. This question has not been resolved to date by EDF: that of the storage of this contaminated part, when it is removed. ASN asked the EDF group to construct a building for this purpose which would allow it to be stored safely on the power plant site. Which still doesn’t seem to be done…
Radioactivity, haphazardly
Emblematic, the tank cover file is not the only one which demonstrates EDF’s lack of consideration for nuclear employees, whether they are in-house agents or subcontracting employees. A second major project, also planned after the start-up of the reactor, will expose those involved to radioactive risks. Here again, this intervention could have been carried out in complete safety before the installation was started: the modification of the cooling system of the reactor auxiliary networks (RRI) and rescued raw water (SEC). Essential elements, particularly during reactor shutdown…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Later, again
Still in the same logic, EDF has postponed the modification of the tank internals until later, more precisely the lower plenum which directs the distribution of the hydraulic flow in the tank. Since the incident that occurred on one of the two EPRs at Taishan in China, in 2021, we have had some feedback: it has been established that this equipment generates poor distribution of hydraulic flow which causes greater fluctuations. greater than expected in the neutron flux, which could lead to difficulties in controlling the nuclear reaction. Although ASN asked EDF to modify the lower plenum, the studies are still in progress………………………………………………………….
In China, to avoid major problems while waiting for the modification of the lower plenum, the power of the reactors (officially 1,750 MW) would have been limited to 1,500 MW. Will this also be the case for the Flamanville EPR? Questioned during the CLI meeting on April 12 by Yannick Rousselet, neither ASN nor EDF deigned to respond.
Let’s cross our fingers, hoping that there will be no runaway nuclear reaction in the Flamanville EPR tank. Especially since Libération revealed in July 2022, two systems of probes and sensors essential for operating the reactor, installed either in the tank or outside, are malfunctioning.
The EPR, political totem
“It would have been smarter to do all this work before the reactor was started,” exasperates Gilles Reynaud, the president of Ma Zone Contrôlée , which brings together nuclear subcontracting employees. But EDF wants to put the EPR into production to say: “that’s it, it works.” Doing all this work afterwards, I don’t find it very respectful for the workers and the population. »
No matter the cost
“We are starting at all costs for purely political reasons,” judge Yannick Rousselet, interviewed by Blast at the end of the CLI on April 12. As President Macron announced the relaunch of nuclear power with the construction of new EPRs, they want to send the message that we are out of the rut. » For Rousselet, this is a very short-term vision: “Even if this reactor shuts down in a few months for a long period, no one cares. We must be able to say: “That’s it, the Flamanville EPR is loaded. He started.” This is what is most dangerous. We don’t try to solve the problems first. »
The secrets of an engineer
And then, potentially, there is another problem in the medium term. Recently, an engineer, Thierry C, contacted Blast to tell us about his short experience in nuclear power.
………………………………. “When I took the file, I quickly realized that most of the valves that had to be installed could not meet the temperature and pressure conditions planned during these requalification tests,” he explains to Blast. Of the approximately 650 pipes equipped with valves, there were approximately 450 that had to be cut to remove the equipment and replace it with a temporary device to block the pipes. » A not really reassuring observation. “I spoke about it to my superiors who asked me to keep quiet and not talk to EDF about it. »
The documents and plans consulted by Blast seem to confirm these remarks. Which poses a problem: the requalification tests must be carried out with the valves to be validated. However, this analysis work was carried out in 2008-2009, when the EPR construction site, which had just started, was still in the civil engineering stage. Thierry C. left the group shortly after carrying out this study. What has happened since then? Has the error made by Alstom on the technical characteristics of the valves been corrected? Impossible to know: neither EDF, nor ASN, nor IRSN wanted to answer us.
Overall, given these unresolved problems and the lack of transparency from EDF and ASN regarding the technical setbacks of the installation, within the Flamanville CLI but also vis-à-vis the press, the long nightmare of the EPR construction site may not be over. This bad dream led to its bill exploding – which reached some 19.1 billion euros . A farce that could end up boring and no longer make anyone laugh. https://www.blast-info.fr/articles/2024/nucleaire-a-flamanville-la-farce-de-lepr-se-poursuit-G9PeKawaRwmShmxp6sJL3g
TODAY. Saint Rafael Grossi on the road to Damascus.
On the road to Damascus is where you get an epiphany. Well, Saint Paul did, anyway. He was on his way to Damascus to do punishing stuff to Christians, when he had a divine revelation and was transformed into an apostle, all aglow with Christian love.
Well, I don’t know that Rafael Grossi had any such revelation, in going to Damascus. But it seems clear that he decided that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is really nothing to worry about, certainly not when compared with the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is to promote the nuclear industry.
We always knew that countries that get nuclear weapons first get a “civil” nuclear industry. Except for the USA, which started the whole thing off the other way around, with the atrocity of the bombs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They then launched enthusiastically into the hypocrisy of the “peaceful nuke.
Britain’s leader Rishi Sunak, and France’s Emmanuel Macron have both publicly made it clear that “commercial” nuclear power is essential for their nuclear weapons industry. (So it doesn’t matter if commercial nuclear is a financial catastrophe.) The USA and Russia don’t seem to care, as long as they can sell all kinds of nuclear technology to anybody, really.
The new “advanced” small nuclear reactors make the problem worse, as they use enriched uranium, and reprocessing technologies that provide a great cover for making weapons grade fuel .
Rafael Grossi is well known for his earnest and pious statements about nuclear safety. Indeed, didn’t we all think that this is his job, to ensure the safety and non-weapons-proliferation of the world’s reactors?
But when did Rafael’s epiphany happen? When did he realise that safety and non-weapons proliferation did not matter now?
Rafael doesn’t seem to understand that all nuclear facilities become a target for terrorism, and a target in war-time. He has said a few cautionary words about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine, but he’s quite OK with Ukraine setting up new nuclear power stations.
Rafael has expressed worthy worries about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons, but nevertheless “expressed his delight and admiration for Saudi Arabia’s nuclear capabilities” – and promoted them .
Syria is a place, and with a leader, prone to military disruptions, and , like Saudi Arabia, to human rights abuses, but that doesn’t seem to worry Grossi, over there to arrange for a Syrian nuclear industry.
An epiphany? Or did Rafael know all the time that his job is to be a nuclear salesman ?
Blatant hypocrisy
Dutton’s plan to save Australia with nuclear comes undone when you look between the brushstrokes
Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/24/duttons-plan-to-save-australia-with-nuclear-comes-undone-when-you-look-between-the-brushstrokes
The dystopian picture of renewables painted by the opposition leader is full of inconsistencies, partial truths and misinformation
The Coalition leader, Peter Dutton, has been trying to paint a picture of what life in Australia will be like if it tries to power itself mostly with renewable energy and without his technology of choice: nuclear.
Towering turbines offshore will hurt whales, dolphins and the fishing industry, factories will be forced to stop working because there’s not enough electricity and the landscape will be scoured by enough new transmission cables to stretch around the entire Australian coastline.
At the same time – so his story goes – only his option to go nuclear will save Australia from falling behind the rest of the world.
But Dutton’s dystopian image, with more brushstrokes added in an interview on the ABC’s flagship Insiders program, is a picture of inconsistencies, partial truths and misinformation.
Let’s have a look between the brushstrokes.
Is it a credible plan?
The Coalition has said it wants to put nuclear reactors at the sites of coal-fired power plants, but hasn’t said where, how big the reactors will be, when it wants them built or given an estimate on cost.
The Coalition has previously said it would give more details on its plan in time for its response to the Albanese government’s budget next month, but Dutton is now saying it will come “in due course”.
Despite this, Dutton claimed in his interview with the ABC’s David Speers that: “I believe that we’re the only party with a credible pathway to net zero by 2050.”
OK then.
28,000 kilometres?
Dutton claimed the government’s plans relied on “28,000km of poles and wires being erected” to connect renewables to the grid – a distance he said was “equal to the whole coastline of Australia”.
That’s a catchy soundbite, but where does this number come from?
According to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s most recent plan for the development of Australia’s east-coast electricity market, the most likely scenarios to decarbonise the electricity grid would require about 10,000km of additional transmission lines to be built between now and 2050.
What about the extra 18,000km? That figure comes in an estimate of what would be needed if Australia chose to become a major exporter of clean hydrogen as well as decarbonising the grid.
So about two-thirds of Dutton’s 28,000km is not so much related to decarbonising the electricity grid, but rather to an export industry that may or may not happen, to an as-yet-unknown extent.
Turning off power?
Dutton claimed: “At the moment, we’re telling businesses who have huge order books to turn down their activity in an afternoon shift because the lights go out on that grid. Now, no other developed country is saying that.”
Dutton is suggesting that businesses are being routinely forced to reduce their demand for power. This is simply not true.
Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at UNSW, says it’s very rare for businesses to be told by the market operator they are going to have their power interrupted.
Such “load shedding” has happened only five times in the last 15 years, he said, typically occurs in extreme conditions such as storms or coal plants going offline, and only a subset of consumers are affected.
There are two main formal voluntary schemes in place across the National Electricity Market (everywhere except NT and WA) where major electricity consumers can offer to reduce their demand for electricity at certain times, but businesses are compensated for being part of those schemes. Nobody is telling any of these businesses that they have to do anything.
Neither is it true that no other country is engaging in some sort of process where demand for electricity can be managed.
Is Australia really the only developed country engaged in what’s known as demand response? No.
The International Energy Agency lists the UK, US, France, Japan and South Korea as having large markets already in place to help their electricity systems balance the supply of electricity with demand.
McConnell said: “Demand response is becoming a common and important part of modern electricity systems. This includes countries like France and the US, which have both nuclear and demand response programs.”
G20 and nuclear
Dutton said Australia was the only G20 nation “not signed up to nuclear or currently using it”.
According to information from the World Nuclear Association, Australia is one of five G20 nations with no operating nuclear power plants, alongside Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Turkey.
But aside from Italy, Germany and Australia, the rest do have some plans to develop nuclear power in the future. Dutton’s phrase “currently using it” allows him to capture countries like Italy that import electricity from nuclear nations.
But what’s also important to note is that among the G20 countries (actually 19 countries) nuclear is mostly playing a marginal role. Nuclear provides more than 5% of its electricity in only seven of those 19 countries.
Social licence?
Projects would need a “social licence” to go ahead, Dutton said, but there was opposition in western New South Wales where “productive” land was being sold for renewables projects.
This is a variation of a previous Dutton speech, where he lamented a supposed “carpeting of Australia’s prime agricultural land with solar and windfarms”.
The renewable energy industry’s Clean Energy Council has countered claims like this, saying even if all the country’s coal plants were replaced with solar farms, the amount of space needed would be about 0.027% of agricultural land.
The Coalition leader has been to the Hunter coast more than once where offshore windfarms are being planned, telling reporters they were a “travesty” and that they would put whales, dolphins and the fishing and tourism industries “at risk”. He told Speers the turbines would rise “260 metres out of the water”.
Dutton told the ABC that Australia should be mindful of the environmental consequences of windfarms – which is, of course, true – but his past statements have sounded more like cheerleading for voices opposed to the plans than an attempt to understand the scale and legitimacy of the concerns, some of which are being stoked by misinformation.
Dutton can’t know what impact offshore windfarms will have on fishing or tourism, but is willing in any case to use labels like “travesty”.
Nationals’ nuclear climate policy puts Australia’s Paris deal in doubt
The Age, James Massola and Mike Foley, April 25, 2024
The Coalition cannot commit to Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, with senior Nationals MPs conceding a plan to adopt nuclear power would mean a future Coalition government would not comply with the Paris Agreement.
Days after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton delayed his announcement of up to six sites for future nuclear power plants – the announcement is now expected after the budget – Nationals leader David Littleproud told this masthead the path to net zero emissions by 2050 would not be linear under a future Coalition government.
The Nationals’ stated aim of slowing down the rollout of large-scale renewable energy projects, combined with the 15-year timeline for building a nuclear plant, means the Coalition would struggle if returned to power to meet Labor’s current target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030.
But a Coalition government would inherit Australia’s legally binding 2030 target under the Paris Agreement, which requires nations to contribute to an international effort to keep global warming under 2 degrees.
Walking away from the Paris Agreement would infuriate Liberal moderates and MPs in metropolitan seats, where climate action is more popular; embolden the teals and other independents; and risk reigniting the climate wars fought between Nationals and Liberals in the former Morrison government.
Littleproud said “there is not a linear pathway to net zero, and trying to achieve one will have a detrimental impact on the economy. We have to have a broad-based solution rather than an all renewables approach.”
He would not commit to Australia’s climate target, set by the Albanese government, to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030.
“We want to wait and see what the modelling we come up with for 2030 [in the party’s new nuclear policy] says, but we won’t rush into anything …”
Experts including former chief scientist Alan Finkel and former Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Professor Andrew Dyer have said it would take a minimum of 15 years for a nuclear plant to be built in Australia
Grattan Institute deputy energy director Alison Reeve said it would be impossible for Australia to reach its 2030 Paris target if there were a slowdown in the renewables rollout – including a pause to accommodate nuclear plant…………………………………………………………..
The Grattan Institute’s Alison Reeve said Australia would not hit the 2030 target under the Coalition’s nuclear push because most of the decarbonisation needed hangs off the government’s renewable goals.
“If you don’t reach that, you just don’t meet the 2030 target,” she said.
The bulk of reductions are to come from reducing coal-fired power and achieving the target to boost renewables to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
Reeve said cutting emissions from the energy sector by replacing fossil fuel electricity with renewables was a fundamental underpinning of Australia’s climate policy and any slowdown in wind and solar farms would make it harder for other sectors to clean up their act………. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/nationals-nuclear-climate-policy-puts-australia-s-paris-deal-in-doubt-20240424-p5fm8p.html
New civil nuclear programmes crossing over into military nuclear programmes
New Nuclear Dual-Use Risk: Beating Swords into Ploughshares? By Dr. Paul Dorfman, https://nct-cbnw.com/new-nuclear-dual-use-risk-beating-swords-into-ploughshares/ 24 Apr 24.
Dr. Paul Dorfman discusses whether new civil nuclear programs could cross over into military nuclear programs, and what this means for global non-proliferation efforts.
According to key global finance advisory and asset management firm Lazard, new nuclear power systems perform poorly compared to renewables’ storage, energy efficiency, cost, roll-out speed, and management. So why invest in new nuclear?
Prof. Andy Stirling and Dr. Phil Johnstone, from the University of Sussex Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), argue that the answer lies in the clear and present link between civil and military nuclear infrastructure. This is because civil nuclear energy maintains the skills and supply chains also needed for military nuclear programs, without which the costs of nuclear military capabilities could become politically unsupportable.
As they point out, the U.K. Government’s ‘Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050’ report includes sets of statements on civil and military nuclear ambitions in order to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”, strengthening existing interconnections between civil and military industries’ research and development, and thereby minimizing costs for both the weapons and power sectors.
More recently, in March 2024, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly linked military nuclear weapons production capability with civil nuclear power generation development. French President Emmanuel Macron has gone further, saying that “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”. And the fact is that 90% of all new nuclear construction projects worldwide involve corporations controlled by states with nuclear weapons
New Nuclear, New Proliferation Risk
The increasingly tense geopolitical environment makes nuclear a controversial issue, with nation states concerned that neighbors might use notionally civilian nuclear programs for military ends. In this sense, there are unique challenges and perceived opportunities when it comes to new civil nuclear ambitions.
Choice of offensive or defensive doctrine affects the way other states evaluate their respective security and, in turn, influences the probability of cross-over between civil and military nuclear capacity. Indeed, current movements in military doctrines share the common denominator of adopting more offensive postures.
Meanwhile, according to the U.K. Royal Society, all forms of nuclear production pose weapons development risks, as “there is no proliferation proof nuclear fuel cycle – the dual use risk of nuclear materials and technology and in civil and military applications cannot be eliminated.”
Unhelpfully, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), which are the best new hope for fissile fuel, could make the weapons proliferation problem even worse as any potential SMR roll-out to either developed or developing countries is likely to increase nuclear proliferation and security risks. This is especially so if any of those states prove politically unstable or have relatively limited resources to support a robust nuclear security and regulatory infrastructure.
Nuclear Cross-over in an Increasingly Unstable World
Unless uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies are effectively regulated against the diversion of civil materials for military purposes, the reality is that new nuclear plants can provide the cover to develop and make nuclear weapons. Whether that capability is turned into actual weapons depends largely on political inclination.
Saudi officials have made it clear on more than one occasion that there’s another reason for their interest in civil nuclear energy technology which was not captured by the royal decree on the Saudi nuclear program – the relationship of the civil program to nuclear weapons. More recently, Saudi Arabia is pushing for the right to produce nuclear fuel, a move that poses further significant proliferation risk. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has voiced concerns about Saudi intentions and safeguards.
Unfortunately, the IAEA’s support for Saudi’s civil nuclear clashes with their position on the Kingdom’s military ambition. This is not the first time that the UN nuclear regulator has been caught in this uncomfortably dualist situation.
More worryingly, the Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has just met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to “agree on a new engagement between Syria and IAEA with a view to providing confidence in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the benefit of its people”. Given the deeply problematic military and human rights history of al-Assad’s regime, the IAEA’s actions seem profoundly concerning, and bring the IAEA’s role in the global nuclear arena into sharp focus.
Thinking this through, an important question springs to mind. Due to the apparent potential for civil-military nuclear cross-over, could the IAEA’s mission – to work for “the safe, secure and peaceful application of nuclear science and technology” – inevitably result in weapons proliferation by default?
Irrational Paradoxes
Back in Eastern Europe, although Ukraine runs a substantive civil nuclear power program, it’s no longer a nuclear weapons state. Ukraine, once briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world, made the decision to give up nuclear weapons on the basis that the U.S., U.K., and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security via the Budapest Memorandum.
In this sense, both Putin’s invasion of an independent state and subsequent nuclear weapons threats highlight the very real practical distinction between unilateral and multilateral nuclear weapons disarmament in an increasingly unstable world.
And then there’s Zaporizhzhia, where a civil nuclear power plant has become a target of war at the very same time that Russia’s role as a major player in the global civil nuclear power sector continues to expand via Moscow-backed international nuclear new-build projects and technology, uranium supply and enrichment, and spent nuclear fuel management.
Direction of Travel
While it appears reasonably clear that civil and military nuclear can enmesh, one must ask whether one inevitably leads to the other. While the usual concern is that civil nuclear infrastructure leads to military development, according to former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australia is bucking the trend: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish […] a civil nuclear capability […] a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
In other words, despite the new nuclear submarine AUKUS deal, the current Australian government has no plans to develop new civil nuclear infrastructure.
So, does that start to negate the civil-military nexus hypothesis? Well, it’s not that nuclear military interests are the sole drivers of support for civil nuclear power, but for some states dual-use technology may comprise a significant complementary factor.
In the end, it’s the direction of travel that counts. While all key energy institutes and research organizations agree that renewables will do the heavy-lifting for the net-zero energy transition, it’s worth considering the implications of U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s speech to Australia’s Energy Forum: “No country has ever been held hostage for access to the sun. No country has ever been held hostage for access to the wind. They have not ever been weaponized, nor will they be.”
Dr. Paul Dorfman is the Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, a Visiting Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of the University of Sussex, U.K., a Member of the Irish Government’s Radiation Protection Advisory Committee, and a Former Advisor to the U.K. Ministry of Defence Nuclear Submarine Dismantling Project.
U.S. Senate Passes $95 Billion Foreign Military Aid Bill
The bill passed in a vote of 79-18
by Dave DeCamp April 23, 2024, AntiWar.com
On Tuesday night, the Senate passed a $95 billion spending bill that includes military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan in a vote of 79-18. The bill has already passed through the House and now heads to President Biden’s desk for his signature.
Earlier in the day, the Senate rejected an effort by some senators to add amendments to the legislation in a vote of 48-50. The legislation, which also includes a provision that could ban TikTok, was passed through the House as four separate bills but was combined into one in the Senate.
The legislation includes $61 billion for the proxy war in Ukraine, much of which will go to US weapons makers to replenish US stockpiles. It includes over $9 billion in economic aid in the form of repayable loans, but Ukraine is not actually expected to pay it back. Another provision will authorize the US to sell off frozen Russian assets, which could be used to pay the loans. CNN previously reported that the Biden administration will also be able to cancel the debt.
The bill also includes $26 billion to support Israel. About $9 billion will go toward humanitarian aid in Gaza and other places, while the remaining $17 billion will go toward military aid to support the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and replenish Israeli air defenses. The aid is on top of the $3.8 billion in military assistance that Israel receives from the US each year.
Another $8 billion will go toward military aid for Taiwan and other spending in the Indo-Pacific region to prepare for a future war with China. It includes $1.9 billion to replenish weapons sent to Taiwan and regional countries and $2 billion in Foreign Military Financing, a State Department program that gives foreign governments money to purchase US weapons. Over $3.3 billion will go toward submarine infrastructure in the region.
The massive spending on foreign military aid was put forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who previously killed a deal that would have included similar foreign aid spending and billions for border security and changes to migrant policies………….. more https://news.antiwar.com/2024/04/23/senate-passes-95-billion-foreign-military-aid-bill/
1.This month.
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 