Herzog, Iran, Pauline, Susssan, Pete and the Rio deal | Scam of the Week

February 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hate speech. Protecting Israel’s reputation in Australia just got cheaper

by Rex Patrick | Jan 26, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/hate-speech-protecting-israels-reputation-in-australia-just-got-cheaper/

Israel’s reputation is treated as a strategic asset to be managed in Western media and political domains. The Israeli ‘machine’ spends a lot of money and effort doing it. The passing of hate laws in the Parliament just switched some of the cost to us. Rex Patrick explains.

Let’s start with some disclosures. 1) I respect people of Jewish faith. 2) I respect people of Islamic faith. 3) Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attacks on Israeli citizens were wrong. 4) Israel’s genocide in Gaza was wrong. 5) Hezbollah and Houthi attacks on Israeli citizens were wrong. 6) Israel’s attacks on Lebanese citizens were wrong. 7) The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach was wrong.

“Violence against civilians is wrong.“

I’ve been asked to weigh in on the Gaza conflict on numerous occasions. I’ve declined because it’s complicated, requires a substantive understanding of history and involves perspectives that, without significant research, will just leave me speaking from an uninformed place.

I’m also of the view that nothing said here in Australia, including by our Prime Minister, will change the views of the Netanyahu government or Hamas. We might be a “middle power” internationally, but Australia really doesn’t weigh very heavily in the strategic or political balance in the Middle East.

I condemn the violence on all sides and advocate that, whilst everyone has a right to respectful commentary and peaceful protest, Middle Eastern affairs should not be a basis for hateful or violent division in the Australian community.

Balcony over Jerusalem

I did, however, decide to try to find out at least something about the current environment in the Middle East from someone who’s spent time there and I could trust. That’s what caused me to buy John Lyon’s book, ‘Balcony Over Jerusalem’.

Lyons is a leading Australian journalist, currently working for the ABC in Washington and, on occasion, upsetting Donald Trump. He takes the reader of his book through the wonders and dangers of the Middle East experienced and learned in his 6 years as a foreign correspondent living in Israel. 

Whilst the book takes the reader on an interesting walk through conflicts across the Middle East, including in Gaza and the Occupied Territories, one clear theme that emerged from the book was the lengths the Israeli ‘machine’ went to try to shape and indeed control the outside world’s perception of Israel.

Controlling the narrative

In the book Lyons argues that Israel treats its international reputation as a strategic asset, and is up there with national security and diplomacy in its importance. It uses a ‘machine’ that doesn’t just react to criticism of Israel, it engages in proactive narrative shaping, which includes systematic engagement with journalists, diplomats and influencers.

Here in Australia members of Parliament are often offered all expenses paid trips to Israel, where see the Israeli perspective on security. I was invited to do so when I was a senator, but declined.

A 2018 study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), part of the ‘machine’, was the largest sponsor of all non-Australian Government funded trips for federal parliamentarians from 2010 to 2018.

The ‘machine’ is responsible for political donations, predominantly to the Liberal Party, but also to Labor. If the machine wants a motion in the House or Senate, or assistance to confuse Israel/Zionism criticism with antisemitism, all it takes is a phone call.

Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has called what Israel does a “well-funded foreign influence operation designed to put the interests of Israel above the interests of Australia and its foreign policy”. MP or senators that speak out will be reminded of donations and threatened with the possibility of a well-funded opponent running against them at the next election.

If the reader googles the words “John Lyons Balcony Over Jerusalem review”, the first entry that is returned is a scathing AIJAC’s review. Query “Bob Carr Israeli foreign influence” and the first return is a critical NSW Jewish Board of Deputies’ Facebook Page.

Taxpayer funded study

Whilst the attack that took place at Bondi on 14 December 2025 was clearly antisemitic, and abhorrent, it’s clear that Prime Minister Albanese wasn’t interested in establishing a Royal Commission.

Unrelenting lobbying was clearly behind Albanese’s decision for the Royal Commission to go ahead. The ‘machine’ did not hide its efforts to get him to see things from their perspective.

Firstly, past Royal Commissions have looked at events, institutions, industries, policies etc while, uniquely, this Royal Commission is peering into the minds of the citizenry. If the Royal Commission does its job properly, it will open a can of worms; worms which have proven to be beyond the management of governments trying to deal with religious discrimination or free speech Bills.

“Oh, and you can’t easily put the lid back on the can.’

Secondly, there’s the problem created by the duplicity of the ‘machine’ not wanting Gaza to be brought into the discussion but wanting peaceful protests over Gaza blamed in some way for what happened at Bondi Beach.

But to control that, the ‘machine’ would have to insert its own Commissioner into the chair. It tried, but thankfully Albanese went with his own choice, former High Court Justice Virginia Bell.

Maybe the ‘free’ study the ‘machine’ has got won’t deliver the desired outcome.

Ill-informed premise

Turning to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, the Attorney-General stated in her second reading speech:

The violent terrorist attack we saw in Bondi did not occur spontaneously. Violent extremism starts with words, words of hate spread throughout the community by pernicious individuals and organisations. This hatred is corrosive to a multicultural democratic society. This bill targets those that support violence, in particular violence targeted at a person because of their immutable attributes. This conduct is criminal, but, more than that, it is the seed of extremism, the roots of terrorism. It must be stamped out with the full force of the law.

A major problem is that we don’t know with sufficient clarity what motivated the Bondi attackers; something the perpetrators heard being said in the community, observation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza (and conflating Israel’s conduct with the principles of the Jewish faith), online teachings from Islamic State that originated overseas or locally generated extremist propaganda.

We might find the Bill advanced through the Parliament on an ill-informed premise.

From the River to the Sea – Hate Speech

The other problem is that the offences under the Bill are open to interpretation.

Saying something hateful doesn’t engage the terms of the Bill. It has to be speech that advocates or threatens violence against a person of a particular a race, or nation, or ethnicity.

So, what happens when someone turns up to a protest against the genocide that took place in Gaza and chants “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”. The person who says it might not have a violent bone in their body and, from their perspective, be rightly using it as a call for human rights, dignity, and equality for Palestinians living under military occupation in the Occupied Territories or Gaza.

An Israeli or Jew wandering past could, from their perspective, rightly view the words as a direct threat to the existence of Israel and the safety of its Jewish population, or an anti-semitic expression.

The non-violent person may have committed a criminal offence, or given cause for their visa to be cancelled.

When asked about just how this would all work,

“the Attorney-General could not answer.”

The cost burden transferred

That’s great for the ‘machine’.

It’ll surely find a way to test the law (including our Constitution), with the taxpayer now picking up the tab for maintaining the narrative and suppressing criticism.

The chanting defendant might win the case, but lose their house in the process. And more chilling is that the uncertainty will remain because the outcome will most likely have turned on the ‘circumstances of the case’.

And if they’re locked up instead, the chant will change to a different set of words that could mean different things to different people and

“the litigation roundabout will continue to turn.”

Meanwhile, because Michael West, who doesn’t back down on honest reporting, stated the chant in a social media report presenting the non-violent persons perspective, MWM might find itself fighting to avoid being listed as a prohibited hate group.

The outcome of the Court case might not matter – with the taxpayer funding the prosecution, the legal fees might bleed the organisation dry. Noting MWM’s fearless reporting on Gaza, the ‘machine’ would be ecstatic

“In truth, the whole thing is a mess.“

But that won’t worry the ‘machine’. Having got the Australian Government and Parliament to pick up a lot of their work, they’ll be redirecting their very considerable resources to new techniques of influence and control.

February 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Project 2025 : The Architecture of an American Upheaval

30 January 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD, https://theaimn.net/project-2025-the-architecture-of-an-american-upheaval/

In an era of complex global challenges, a blueprint for the radical restructuring of the United States government and its role in the world has moved from the fringes of policy workshops to the centre of power. Known as Project 2025, this initiative is no mere political manifesto; it is a detailed, nearly thousand-page operational plan to consolidate executive power, dismantle long-standing federal institutions, and reorient American society and foreign policy according to a specific, hardline conservative vision.

While its architects publicly frame it as a preparatory tool for any conservative president, its DNA is unmistakably Trumpist. The project is a direct response to the perceived failures of Donald Trump’s first term, designed to ensure that a future administration is not hindered by a non-compliant bureaucracy or a lack of ideological clarity. An analysis found that just four days into his second term, nearly two-thirds of Trump’s executive actions “mirror or partially mirror” proposals from Project 2025. This is not a coincidence; it is the implementation of a premeditated design.

The Architects and the Blueprint

Project 2025 is the brainchild of The Heritage Foundation, a cornerstone of American conservative thought, which has orchestrated a coalition of over 100 partner organisations. The project’s director is Paul Dans, a former chief of staff in Trump’s Office of Personnel Management, and its president is Kevin Roberts, who has openly described the organisation’s role as “institutionalizing Trumpism.”

The initiative is built on “four pillars” that function as an integrated system for seizing the levers of government: a 920-page policy bible called the “Mandate for Leadership“; a personnel database of vetted, ideologically loyal individuals; a training academy for these recruits; and a secretive “Playbook” of draft executive orders for the first 180 days. The project operates with a stated budget of $22 million and is supported by a network of groups, with nearly half having received funding from a dark money network linked to Leonard Leo, a key architect of the conservative judiciary.

Core Aims and Ideological Drivers

The agenda laid out in Project 2025 is sweeping, touching upon nearly every aspect of governance and American life. Its central ideological drivers are the concentration of presidential power, the advancement of a Christian nationalist social agenda, and a dramatic rollback of the federal government’s regulatory and social welfare functions.

In the realm of government and power, the plan aims to dismantle the “administrative state” by reinstating “Schedule F,” a measure that would reclassify up to 50,000 career civil servants as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with administration loyalists. It also seeks to bring independent agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI under direct presidential control.

On social policy, the blueprint is equally transformative. It proposes using the 1873 Comstock Act to criminalise the mailing of abortion pills and to reverse FDA approval of the abortion medication mifepristone. It aims to remove legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, mandate discrimination against transgender people in the military and in disaster assistance, and eliminate all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government.

For the economy and environment, the project advocates for slashing corporate taxes, instituting a flat individual income tax, and cutting spending on social programs like Medicare and Medicaid. On the environment, it calls for the United States to withdraw from international climate agreements and to unleash maximum domestic fossil fuel production under a mantra of “drill, drill, drill,” with one proposal going so far as to suggest abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Regarding immigration and security, the plan outlines a policy of executing the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. It also proposes ending birthright citizenship, dismantling the asylum system, and deploying the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement.

The Trump-Project 2025 Nexus

Despite Donald Trump’s public attempts to distance himself, the connections are deep. The initiative is staffed by over 200 former Trump administration officials, and at least six of his former cabinet secretaries are authors or contributors to the project’s policy bible. Crucially, key figures behind the project have been appointed to Trump’s second-term administration. Russell Vought, a Project 2025 co-author, was reappointed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Stephen Miller, whose group advised the project, was appointed as a White House advisor. Tom Homan, a contributor, was appointed as “Border Czar,” and Pam Bondi, an ardent supporter, was nominated for U.S. Attorney General. This integration demonstrates that the project’s ultimate aim – to provide a “government in waiting” – has been realised.

Global Implications and the Australian Context

The project’s vision explicitly aims to reshape America’s role in the world. Its foreign policy prescriptions include a “pivot” to counter China, which analysts suggest would come at the expense of focus on Russia and European democracies. It advocates for a “comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations,” signaling a strong isolationist and unilateralist turn. Furthermore, it would embed conservative religious goals into foreign policy, for instance, by making “protecting life” a “core objective” of foreign assistance.

For Australia, the direct mentions in the project’s materials are few, primarily suggesting greater defence collaboration. However, the indirect consequences would be profound. A U.S. withdrawal from climate agreements and a massive increase in fossil fuel production would cripple global efforts to combat climate change, a dire outcome for a region highly vulnerable to its effects. A shift in U.S. commitment to international institutions would create significant uncertainty and force a realignment of strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. The Heritage Foundation’s open admiration for Viktor Orban’s Hungary as “the model” for conservative statecraft indicates a foreign policy more friendly to authoritarian leaders, potentially altering the global democratic landscape in which Australia operates.

A Contested Legacy

Project 2025 is celebrated by its proponents as a necessary measure to dismantle an unaccountable bureaucracy. Its critics, including pro-democracy advocates and civil liberties unions, have labeled it an authoritarian and Christian nationalist plan that would undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties.

The implementation of this project represents a fundamental test for the American system of government. It is a deliberate, well-funded, and systematic effort to transform the structure of the state itself. As this blueprint becomes reality, its effects will reverberate far beyond Washington, D.C., challenging democratic norms and international alliances, and forcing nations like Australia to navigate a world reshaped by an America that has chosen a radically different path.

February 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MOBILISE AGAINST THE F35s!

MOBILISE AGAINST THE F35s!

U.S. OUT! CANCEL AUKUS! CLOSE PINE GAP!

WAGE PEACE invites allies and collaborators to a week of action against the F35 genocide jet on the unceded lands of this continent, from 27th March to 2nd April, 2026. (NB Mobilisations never start on the day they say!)

The F35 ‘genocide jet’ is made by the US and the world’s biggest weapons company, Lockheed Martin. The Israeli F35 genocide jets can not fly without Australian replacement parts.  

Managed by Lockheed and on US orders, at least 71 packages of F35 parts have been sent from Sydney to Israel. Parts stored at the genocide jet ‘sustainment’ facility at Williamtown RAAF base, just north of Newcastle, were loaded onto commercial Thai Airways passenger flights (WTF!), then forwarded to the Israeli Airforce base at Nevatim.

Turns out, parts produced in Australia can be requisitioned by the US at any time to serve US — and Israeli interests. No matter where F35 parts are made, the US owns them and Lockheed manages them. It’s been like this for more than 10 years. According to Defence Minister Richard Marles, ‘Australia is an F35 country’. We are owned and directed by the disordered, cruel, unjust mess that is the USA and their weapons corporations. The USA’s genocide is our genocide. We are dragged into Israel’s cruelty.

Mass mobilisations of Australian people have said we do not consent to complicity in Israel’s genocide. We have demanded that the Department of Defence and all the companies involved refuse to supply F35 parts or any other weapons to Israel. Yet the supply continues.

CAN WE WIN?

We have wins already!

In a single week in October, 18 actions were held against the weapons industry in 6 cities. Then, in early November, the Department of Defence emailed weapons suppliers in Australia ‘suggesting’ they cancel or refuse further contracts with Israel.

Our friends in the Netherlands have had a win. In October 2025 Supreme Court judges gave the Dutch government six weeks to review its policy on export licenses; the decision was made in a matter of hours: a continuation of the arms embargo from 2024 – no F35 parts.

Supplying a genocide is against International Law and Australia’s own weapons regulations. This acknowledgement by governments that arming Israel might lead to war crimes prosecutions was a huge win for the anti-genocide movement.

Since the genocide began, our movement has constantly picketed, blocked and vandalised companies supplying the genocide jet. In the first week of December we disrupted 3 different F35 suppliers in the Newcastle area alone.

At the same time as our Newcastle actions unfolded, David Shoebridge was grilling Defence officials in Senate Estimates about who signed what and when, and Peter Cronau was reporting on Lockheed Martin’s delivery of Australian genocide jet components from Newcastle to Israel.

Lockheed is worried. The men who sign the defence export permits are even more worried.

WHAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO STOP THE SUPPLY OF AUSTRALIAN PARTS TO F35 GENOCIDE JETS?

The F35 genocide jet is a very inefficient machine, needing 5 hours of ‘sustainment’ for every hour of operation. The genocide jet has been a major contributor to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and now Lebanon, so the need for spare parts is still constant.

The F35 weapons transfers from Newcastle to Israel STILL NEED AN EXPORT PERMIT signed by Australian Defence Department officials and approved by Defence Minister Richard Marles for these stored parts.

This is where we think we can make impact.

What if Defence Department officials were publicly named and called upon to refuse to facilitate transport of genocide jet components? What if those Defence officials and Ministers Marles, Wong (Foreign Affairs) and Conroy (Defence Industries) decided that the personal risk of facing a war crimes tribunal in the future outweighed the obligation to serve Lockheed Martin?

COLLABORATIVE PEOPLE-POWERED ACTION

Using the tools we wield the best ¬— community-based direct action and participatory resistance ¬— we propose to work in concert with key politicians, journalists and human rights organisations to problematise the supply of components to Lockheed’s genocide jets. We aim to create a crisis for Defence officials and staff, such that they are no longer willing to sign off on F35 exports, by raising the real possibility their names will end up on war crimes prosecutors’ lips in The Hague.

January 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Another miserable year for nuclear power as renewables surge.

All renewables (including hydro) accounted for 47.7 percent while nuclear (which fell by nearly two percent last year) now accounts for less than half that amount (23.4 percent)

Jim Green, Jan 27, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-miserable-year-for-nuclear-power-as-renewables-surge/

The latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report has crunched the numbers to show that 2025 was another underwhelming year for nuclear power.

Here are the key 2025 global figures:

• * power reactor startups (grid connections): 4 reactors, 4.4 gigawatts (GW) capacity
• * permanent shutdowns: 7 reactors, 2.8 GW
• * net growth of nuclear capacity: 1.6 GW
• * power reactor construction starts: 11 reactors, 12.0 GW

The four reactor startups were in China (2), Russia and India. That is the lower number of startups since 2017.

The seven permanent reactor shutdowns were in Belgium (3), Russia (3) and Taiwan.

The net decline of three operating reactors makes 2025 the worst year on that criterion since 2012, when many reactors were permanently closed due to the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.

The 11 construction starts in 2025 — the highest number since 2010 — were in China (9), South Korea and Russia.

As of 1 January 2026, according to the World Nuclear status report – WNISR-2026:

• * 404 nuclear power reactors were operating in the world — five less than a year earlier and 34 less than the historic peak of 438 in 2002.
• * Nuclear accounted for 9.0 percent of global electricity generation, barely half its historic peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
• * 31 countries were operating nuclear power plants worldwide, one fewer than a year earlier as Taiwan closed its last reactor in May 2025.

Taiwan is the fifth country to abandon its nuclear power program following Italy (1990), Kazakhstan (1999), Lithuania (2009) and Germany (2023).

Overall, the 25-year pattern of global stagnation continues, with no end in sight. Installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than the estimated 793 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity (up from 717 GW in 2024).

In China, new nuclear capacity in 2025 amounted to 2.5 GW whereas solar capacity installed in the first 11 months of 2025 amounted to an estimated 275 GW. The nuclear share of electricity generation in China has fallen for four years in a row after peaking at 5.0 percent in 2021.

That’s despite China’s status as the only significant growth market in the world, with a net growth of around 50 reactors over the past 20 years and a net decline of around 50 reactors in the rest of the world.

Conspicuously absent from the lists of reactor startups and construction starts are any small modular reactors or any ‘Generation IV’ reactors such as fast neutron reactors, fusion reactors, molten salt reactors, etc.

Dramatic drop in number of countries building reactors

The number of countries building power reactors has fallen off a cliff. WNISR-2026 notes:

“The number of building countries declined by almost one third, from 16 to 11, in just two years, with several countries having completed their last construction project (France, United Arab Emirates, United States), or suspended if not terminated construction (Argentina, Brazil, Japan), while only one country was added to the list (Pakistan).

“Only eight of the 31 countries currently operating commercial nuclear plants are building new ones, while three are newcomer countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, Türkiye) in the course of building their first reactors, all implemented by the Russian nuclear industry.”

The number of countries operating power reactors reached 32 in the mid-1990s. Since then it has fallen to 31.

Globally, the number of power reactors under construction increased by seven in 2025 — entirely due to China. China has 36 reactors under construction, more than half of the global total of 66.

Not a single power reactor is under construction across the 35 countries of the American continent.

Only one reactor is under construction in the European Union (in Slovakia). Solar and wind (30 percent combined) overtook fossil fuels (29 percent) for EU electricity generation last year.

All renewables (including hydro) accounted for 47.7 percent while nuclear (which fell by nearly two percent last year) now accounts for less than half that amount (23.4 percent).

Over the six-years from 2020-26, Chinese and Russian companies have been the only builders worldwide responsible for reactor construction starts, with the exception of one project in South Korea. Only Russia, China and France are building reactors abroad.

The ‘peaceful atom’

WNISR-2026 notes that of the total of 66 reactors under construction in 11 countries, 63 (95 percent) are either in nuclear-weapon states (50) or are implemented by companies controlled by nuclear-weapon states in other countries (13). Only the three construction projects in South Korea fall outside this category.

Iran’s uranium enrichment program drew attention to the potential to weaponise the ‘peaceful atom’ and the military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year by Israel and the US added to the long history of nation-states attacking nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation (or for that reason among others).

Other examples of conventional military attacks on nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation include Israel’s destruction of reactor components awaiting shipment to Iraq, in France in 1979; Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1981; military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980-88 war; the United States’ destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1991; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor site in Syria in 2007.

Russia’s attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine probably aren’t motivated by weapons proliferation concerns. Nonetheless, the risk of a nuclear catastrophe on top of the ongoing mass murder of conventional warfare highlights the role of nuclear plants as stationary terrorist targets or weapons of mass destruction.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi recently said that fighting around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has left Europe’s largest nuclear plant in an “extremely fragile, volatile condition”.

Apart from the fragile, volatile situation at Zaporizhzhia, low-lights in 2025 included a drone attack which seriously damaged the protective dome over the stricken Chernobyl #4 reactor and, more importantly, more than 10 attacks on nuclear power plant substations in Ukraine which are, according to the IAEA, “essential for nuclear safety and security” and “absolutely indispensable for providing the electricity all nuclear power plants need for reactor cooling and other safety systems.”

Industry hype

Despite the 25-year pattern of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association claims that global nuclear power capacity could more than triple to reach 1,446 GW by 2050. But there’s plenty of fine-print undermining this absurd projection:

• 
  * A big chunk of the projected growth (542 GW) “is not yet supported by identified projects”.
• * Another big chunk (425 GW) comprises reactors that are planned, proposed or potential … all essentially meaningless categories.
• * A “substantial” share of the required capacity growth depends “on large-scale programmes for proposed, potential, and government-targeted capacity that are not yet supported by firm investment decisions”.
• * The required 65 GW per year from 2046-2050 is “roughly double the historic peak build rate seen in the 1980s”.
• * Achieving the projection will require “unprecedented construction rates, strategic lifetime extension of existing reactors, and significant policy and market reforms”.
• * Several national targets (such as the 293 GW of new capacity required to meet the United States’ 400 GW target) “rely heavily on an expansion of nuclear capacity where there is currently little or no ongoing construction, or identified reactors planned or proposed for deployment”.

Here’s the World Nuclear Association’s decidedly ‘iffy’ conclusion:

“If governments uphold their stated ambitions, if regulatory and market frameworks are adapted to support both existing and new reactors, and if the nuclear industry expands its capacity to deliver at scale, the world’s nuclear fleet can more than triple by 2050.”

It’s all comical nonsense. But put yourself in the position of a spin-doctor employed by the World Nuclear Association … could you do any better than to play make-believe?

A much more likely scenario is that the past 25 years of nuclear stagnation will be followed by another 25 years of stagnation. If there is any growth — and there may not be due to the ageing of the global reactor fleet and the industry’s other challenges — it will be marginal growth.

Nuclear power is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic

At the top of the list of the industry’s challenges is that it is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic. Here are the costs of some recent and proposed projects:

Nuclear stagnation vs. renewables growth

As noted above, installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than new solar and wind capacity.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the installation of 4,600 GW of new renewable capacity in the five years from 2025-2030, twice as much as in the previous five years. (Current global nuclear capacity is 369 GW.)

The IEA stated in October 2025 that:

• * Renewables will surpass coal at the end of 2025 (or by mid-2026 at the latest) to become the largest source of electricity generation globally. (The World Economic Forum states that renewables overtook coal in the first half of 2025.)
• * The share of renewables in global electricity generation is projected to rise from 32 percent in 2024 to 43 percent by 2030.
• * From 2025-2030, renewables are expected to meet over 90 percent of global electricity demand growth.

Over the past decade we’ve seen renewable electricity generation double then triple nuclear power generation. By the end of this decade renewables will out-generate nuclear by a factor of 5-7.

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

January 28, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment