Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Australia’s business leaders want stronger climate policy, but nuclear lobby stooge Senator Matt Canavan wants Australia to boycott COP 26

On Wednesday, Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan called on Australia to boycott Glasgow, labelling the conference a “sham” in reaction to news that the nuclear industry has not been granted permission to host exhibits at the conference.

“They have banned nuclear technologies – reliable, emission-free power – from presenting. Climate change activism is not about changing the climate, it is about changing our politics. Australia should not bother going,” Senator Canavan tweeted.

Retiring Flynn MP Ken O’Dowd said Britain, the USA and Canada use nuclear power and he would “tend to agree” with Mr Canavan.

Why would the Glasgow conference not want to discuss it? It should be one of the first items on the agenda,” Mr O’Dowd said.

Business urges government to take net zero pledge to UN climate talks,   https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/business-urges-government-to-take-net-zero-pledge-to-un-climate-talks-20210831-p58nma.html By Mike Foley,  September 2, 2021 Australia’s energy, business and oil and gas lobbies are joining calls from key international allies for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to set a net zero emissions deadline ahead of the United Nations climate conference in Glasgow this November.

But division within the federal government threatens to block the Prime Minister’s push for a commitment, with the Nationals still opposed to a deadline that is supported by every major farming group.

Senior officials from the European Union, Britain and US have urged Australia to set more ambitious goals. US presidential climate envoy John Kerry said scientists’ dire warnings over global warming placed more pressure on Australia.

Australia has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas contribution by at least 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 emissions, but has not set a deadline to hit net zero emissions. Most other developed nations have committed to roughly halve their emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 or earlier.

But the government has not committed to greater action because the Nationals party, which has not yet backed a carbon-neutral deadline, has demanded to see the economic cost of greater climate action before signing up.

Mr Morrison says he wants to achieve net zero as soon as possible – “preferably by 2050.”

On Wednesday, Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan called on Australia to boycott Glasgow, labelling the conference a “sham” in reaction to news that the nuclear industry has not been granted permission to host exhibits at the conference.

Australia’s petroleum lobby, its peak employer association, big power generators and investors from the booming clean energy industry say the government should head to the high-profile international climate talks armed with a 2050 commitment for carbon neutrality.

“They have banned nuclear technologies – reliable, emission-free power – from presenting. Climate change activism is not about changing the climate, it is about changing our politics. Australia should not bother going,” Senator Canavan tweeted.

Retiring Flynn MP Ken O’Dowd said Britain, the USA and Canada use nuclear power and he would “tend to agree” with Mr Canavan.

“Why would the Glasgow conference not want to discuss it? It should be one of the first items on the agenda,” Mr O’Dowd said.

However, former Nationals leader Michael McCormack said, in response to Mr Canavan, that Australia must be “at the table” in Glasgow.

“We have to be part of discussions, part of finding the way forward,” Mr McCormack said.

Australian Energy Council, which represents Australia’s largest electricity providers and major emitters including AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia, backs a net zero deadline. Chief executive Sarah McNamara said the industry had a key role in climate action.

Settling on an economy-wide target will let us then decide the best ways to get there at the lowest cost and undoubtedly prompt a steady reduction in our emissions,” Ms McNamara said.

The Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said it was crucial government deliver on its promise to release a long-term strategy for climate change before Glasgow.

“(It) should include a clear long term national goal of net zero emissions by 2050 to guide government policy and private investment (and) medium term emissions reduction goals in line with the long-term goal and Australia’s peers,” Mr Willox said.

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association also backed net zero by 2050 and said the industry was investing heavily to reduce emissions.

“Anyone reading the sobering report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this week knows the world has no other option but to take practical steps to address the climate challenge,” an APPEA spokesman said.

Peak mining lobby the Minerals Council backs the Prime Minister’s current policy stance to reach net zero by as soon as possible and preferably by 2050. It called for Australia to open its carbon credit scheme, which pays private industry for emissions reduction, to international trading.

The council lodged a submission this week on the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement which said Japan’s commitment to decarbonise its economy provided a significant opportunity for the mining industry to supply “technologies of the future, including hydrogen with carbon capture storage”.

The Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents Macquarie Bank, Andrew Forest’s Squadron Energy and the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock said Australia would take an economic hit if it took weaker climate commitments to Glasgow.

Chief executive Simon Corbell said Australia should set an economy-wide net zero deadline of 2040 including a 2035 deadline for the electricity sector.

“This would only result in the cost of capital for clean energy projects in Australia remaining more expensive than other advanced economies,” he said.

The Investor Group of Climate Change, backed by funds managing $2 trillion of assets, said many nations had moved beyond net zero and were making more ambitious near term goals

“Australia risks being the only major advanced economy to not substantially and formally increase its 2030 target by Glasgow,” said policy director Erwin Jackson.

“Capital is mobile and will move to countries which deliver the best long-term returns. For long-term investors this is a net zero emission economy. Investors expect nations to demonstrate strong ambition to 2030 to get on an orderly pathway to net zero emission by 2050.”

September 2, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics international | Leave a comment

Napandee nuclear waste site is in fact on farming land, and all too close to the town of Kimba

Roni Skipworth No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia , 2 Sept 21,

Not many people know where the nominated site ‘Napandee property’ is. Let me assist with showing you where this property is, there is a purple cross showing this property on a map. The land is not a flat unproductive site as stated in many reports as last time we travelled pass there were many sheep eating its grass  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Scrutiny on possible fraud in the process of the government bribery grants for South Australian communities to accept a nuclear waste dump

Recently information has become available that has indicates a new path of attack against the planned nuclear waste dump in South Australia.

It is is being reported to the Federal Police Fraud Investigation Branch that several individuals made application for a
community grant fraudulently. These individuals participated in a conspiracy with a “resource agency” who
assisted in making application for the grant fraudulently on behalf of an “Aboriginal Corporation” that does not meet the requirements or criteria for the grant.

Grant approval was obtained successfully and was publicly announced. What this proves is that the entire process was rushed and the money grab that divided and separated local communities was able to be manipulated so easily that some unscrupulous people could illegally take advantage.

The federal police will have all the available evidence shortly (there is a lot) and the corporation and persons involved
in the fraudulent funding application will be held to account and prosecuted under federal law.    A win for transparency in the local area.

But it will be a bigger win for the overall fight because it would put the entire grant bribery process and purpose under scrutiny. Hopefully it will lead to very publicly broadcasted news stories following the progress of the investigation and prosecution proceedings.

September 2, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

The ANZUS treaty does not make Australia safer. Rather, it fuels a fear of perpetual military threat 

Instead of viewing our region with empathy and generosity — or partnering with the US to prevent the world from becoming poorer, more dangerous or more disorderly — the Australian government seeks to arm itself.

In the process, it serves only to perpetuate a world in which conflict becomes ever more likely, and economic, racial and environmental inequality more entrenched.

The ANZUS treaty does not make Australia safer. Rather, it fuels a fear of perpetual military threat  https://theconversation.com/the-anzus-treaty-does-not-make-australia-safer-rather-it-fuels-a-fear-of-perpetual-military-threat-165670?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%201%202021%20-%202047620154&utm_content=Latest
Emma Shortis, Research Fellow, RMIT University, September 1, 2021  In June 2020, the Australian federal government announced a new, A$270 billion defence strategy. Part of this entailed spending $800 million on new AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missiles from the United States.

The new spend formed part of a long tradition of Australian defence procurement from the US. In 2017, the Australian National Audit Office estimated the Australian Defence Force (ADF) had spent an eye-watering $10 billion on American weapons and equipment in the previous four years alone.

This trend looks set to continue. This May, for example, the ADF announced the establishment of a $7 billion space division, which will inevitably deepen Australia’s security and economic ties with the US.

And as the Biden administration focuses more attention on “the Quad” — the quadrilateral security arrangement between the US, Australia, Japan and India — to counter Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia will most likely purchase even more American weapons and military equipment.

ANZUS is no security guarantee

These close security linkages reflect the broader consensus underpinning the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS), which marks its 70th birthday today.

This consensus – shared not just by US and Australian governments, but also by the broader foreign policy and media establishments in both countries – is that ANZUS makes Australia, and the world, safer.

The belief is the treaty — and the deep friendship between our two countries — gives Australia special access to advanced American military technology that we need (although not at a discount).

And, more importantly, that it keeps us under an American security umbrella. Australians can rely, in the recent words of one senior bureaucrat, on the “protection afforded” by ANZUS.

This assumption rests specifically on Article IV of the treaty, in which each party “declares that it would act to meet the common danger”. This language is widely assumed to constitute a security guarantee from the US. However, the reality is, it does not.

The belief is the treaty — and the deep friendship between our two countries — gives Australia special access to advanced American military technology that we need (although not at a discount).

And, more importantly, that it keeps us under an American security umbrella. Australians can rely, in the recent words of one senior bureaucrat, on the “protection afforded” by ANZUS.

This assumption rests specifically on Article IV of the treaty, in which each party “declares that it would act to meet the common danger”. This language is widely assumed to constitute a security guarantee from the US. However, the reality is, it does not.

Reinforcing a perception of perpetual military threat

Why is this? One reason is the treaty (and Australia’s relationship with the US more broadly) reinforces and perpetuates a belief that Australia faces a perpetual military threat.

It also reinforces the idea that military might is needed to meet that threat. The purchase of more American weapons, in the words of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has the effect of “deterring an attack on Australia and helping to prevent war”.

Even putting the questionable basis of this assumption aside, this focus on military threat at the expense of all else has had significant consequences for both Australia and our region. Other genuine threats, such as climate change, are always treated as peripheral to the core of Australia’s relationship with the US.

It was perhaps telling that as Australian officials were negotiating the purchase of more American weaponry last year, they weren’t using our uniquely close relationship to secure priority access to something that would actually make Australians safer: American vaccines.

When Morrison announced the country’s new defence strategy, he justified both the spending and aggressive posturing on the basis a post-COVID world will be “poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly”.

As I argue in my new book, Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States, ANZUS reinforces this way of seeing the world.

Instead of viewing our region with empathy and generosity — or partnering with the US to prevent the world from becoming poorer, more dangerous or more disorderly — the Australian government seeks to arm itself.

In the process, it serves only to perpetuate a world in which conflict becomes ever more likely, and economic, racial and environmental inequality more entrenched.

A shift in mentality is needed

ANZUS was born out of a shared experience of war in the 1950s, and particularly Australian perceptions of ongoing, existential threats from non-white neighbours. These perceptions, based on deep racism and fear, were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Yet, the current US-Australia strategic relationship still requires an enemy – a “common danger”. As a result, the US and Australia will always find one, together.

The only way to change this is through a deep, honest reckoning with the origins of Australia’s security alliance with the US — and its consequences.

This doesn’t mean scrapping ANZUS. Even if that were possible, the structures that exist around it and the ideas that inform Australian foreign policy would endure.

It does mean, however, trying to find different ways for Australia to manoeuvre within those structures, stepping back from a fear-mongering, military threat mentality, and forging genuine relationships with our neighbours.

It means trying to forge a relationship with the United States that is not, in the words of a former US president, “sealed with … blood”.

Yet, even as the recent events in Afghanistan make the consequences of our unquestioning security alliance so glaringly obvious, there is no indication Australia will do anything other than double down on it.

The mindset that has led successive Australian governments to follow the US will not change, no matter what Washington does or who is in charge. The position of the current government is to strengthen the treaty, rather than try to dismantle it.

That’s dangerous for us and the world. Happy birthday, ANZUS.


Emma Shortis’s new book, Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States, was published last month by Hardie Grant Books.

September 2, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Macedon Ranges joins 36 local councils to call on Australian government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Council raises voice on nuclear weapons   Midland Express 01/09/2020    Macedon Ranges has joined the call for the federal government to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.


The council last week joined 36 local councils to pass a motion in support of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Cities for Peace Appeal.


Spearheading the move, Cr Annette Death was adamant that local government needed to consider the consequences of nuclear warfare and voice concern.

…….. Macedon Ranges doctor and Medical Association for Prevention of War member, Jenny Grounds, briefed the council in August on the impact nuclear war would inflict on local communities………… McEwen MP Rob Mitchell signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons pledge in 2018, and last week welcomed the council’s move.


“Labor in government will sign and ratify the ban treaty and has recommitted to act with urgency and determination to rid the world of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons,” he said.  https://midlandexpress.com.au/latest-news/2021/09/01/macedon-ranges-shire-council-adds-voice-to-anti-nuclear-campaign/

September 2, 2021 Posted by | politics, Victoria, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Morrison government moves to strengthen secrecy around energy ministers meetings

Details of key energy policy decisions could remain secret, as the Morrison government moves to protect National Cabinet deliberations from transparency laws. The post Morrison government moves to strengthen secrecy around energy ministers meetings appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Morrison government moves to strengthen secrecy around energy ministers meetings — RenewEconomy Michael Mazengarb 2 September 2021 The Morrison government has moved to strengthen the level of secrecy around the proceedings of National Cabinet – including the meetings of energy ministers – proposing new legislative amendments that will ensure the National Cabinet is exempt from a range of transparency measures, including freedom of information laws.

The move will extend to the ‘sub-committees’ of the National Cabinet, including the Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee chaired by federal energy minister Angus Taylor.

The new legislation, which will define the National Cabinet as a committee of the federal cabinet under a range of transparency laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, is designed to ensure the National Cabinet is protected from public disclosure obligations.

The legislation comes as a response to a landmark ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a freedom of information request lodged by independent senator Rex Patrick, which ruled the National Cabinet was not covered by freedom of information exceptions, and documents relating to National Cabinet meetings should be disclosed publicly.

But the Morrison government has sought to effectively overturn this decision through the legislative amendments, ensuring the proceedings of National Cabinet, and its sub-committees, remain secret.

“Like the Commonwealth cabinet and its committees, all proceedings and documentation of the National Cabinet and its committees are confidential,” federal education minister Alan Tudge said when presenting the legislation.


In response, Patrick described prime minister Scott Morrison as a ‘sore loser’.

“Having acted outside and contrary to the law with regard to National Cabinet secrecy, the Prime Minister now wants to change the law,” Patrick said.

“He’s a sore loser who does not accept long-established conventions of Cabinet responsibility and democratic accountability. He hates scrutiny and is allergic to transparency.”

The creation of the Nation Cabinet came at the same time as the abolition of the COAG system, including the COAG Energy Council meeting of energy ministers. The change has allowed the Morrison government to take greater control of the National Cabinet process – and in the case of energy reforms – as meant that little detail of what is discussed amongst energy ministers is known publicly.

While state and territory ministers often publicly vented their frustration about the lack of national action on climate and energy policy around meetings of the former COAG Energy Council, the new National Cabinet regime means ministers are bound by cabinet confidentiality rules and have since been largely mute about any dissatisfaction they may harbour about the proceedings of the new committee.

The Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee has taken oversight for the work of the Energy Security Board. Its secrecy requirements have resulted in key information about energy market reforms being proposed by the Energy Security Board being withheld from the broader energy market for weeks after reform recommendations were delivered to ministers.

Much of the energy market was reliant on leaked information as their main source of knowledge about the Energy Security Board’s post-2025 re-design of the National Electricity Market – which will amount to the most significant shake-up of the market’s design since its formation.

The control that Taylor wields over the energy committee also meant that the first official public release of information about landmark energy market reforms was first released to news outlet

sympathetic to the Morrison government before it was released to the wider public.

The added protections being sought by the Morrison government will further prevent the release of information about meetings of the Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee – with the public left in the dark about even the agendas of meetings.

RenewEconomy has sought access to documents relating to meetings of the Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee on several occasions – as well as a wide range of documents relating to other government decisions through freedom of information laws, but access has been denied in most cases.

A recent review of freedom of information requests completed by the Grata Fund found that the Morrison government has often unlawfully blocked access to documents, undermining laws intended to support public transparency and accountability of government decisions.

The latest legislation looks set to be opposed by both Labor and the Greens. The Morrison government will likely be reliant on One Nation senators to pass the laws through the senate.

September 2, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, legal, politics, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Landmark FOI ruling could shed new light on Taylor’s big energy market ploy — RenewEconomy

State and territory energy ministers may be freed from federal cabinet confidentiality rules, following a landmark FOI ruling.

Landmark FOI ruling could shed new light on Taylor’s big energy market ploy — RenewEconomy

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Webinar: NEM Reforms – Who rules the market? — RenewEconomy

Join a panel of leading experts to discuss Australia’s new energy market in the first webinar of the Energy Transformed series. The post Webinar: NEM Reforms – Who rules the market? appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Webinar: NEM Reforms – Who rules the market? — RenewEconomy

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

After the Afghanistan war, the time for change is now.

After Afghanistan . . . a Truth Commission?. Wednesday, http://commonwonders.com/after-afghanistan-a-truth-commission/ September 1st, 2021  By Robert C. Koehler

Let’s open the books, declassify the secrets and lies, let our vets talk about PTSD and moral injury, let refugees talk about loved ones found in the rubble, let the corporate militarists disclose their finances, and demand full coverage by the media.

The first step in ending war is seeing it for what it is. I realize how terrifying this must seem to those who have secrets to hide, to those who have accepted the façade of idealism — “we’re fighting for freedom!” — and allowed this façade to justify murder. But the point isn’t condemnation. The point is transcendence.

“Ten members of one family — including seven children — are dead after a US drone strike targeting a vehicle in a residential neighborhood of Kabul . . .

“The youngest victims of Sunday’s airstrike were two 2-year-old girls, according to family members.

“Relatives found the remains of one of the girls, Malika, in the rubble near their home on Monday.”

Ho hum, life goes on — especially if you call it collateral damage and refuse to imagine the corpse of your own loved one lying in the rubble. The deaths, described in a brief CNN story, resulted from a retaliatory airstrike following the ISIS suicide bombing at the Kabul airport last week, as the U.S. was allegedly ending its 20-year war with Afghanistan . . . 80,000 bombs dropped, several hundred thousand people killed, 2.3 trillion dollars wasted, a country left utterly shattered and impoverished.

The secret to waging war, especially endless war, involves sweeping all this cold, hard data out of the public consciousness. It also involves maintaining a total disconnect between one’s own acts of violence and those perpetrated by the enemy (the enemy is motivated solely by immoral interests, not by retaliatory outrage). And above all, perhaps, it involves never acknowledging one’s own economic and geopolitical interests in a given conflict, but endlessly blathering about our ideals and the need to “fulfill our mission.” Indeed, in Afghanistan, as in Iraq (or Vietnam), our mission could have been code-named Casper the Friendly Ghost, so lacking was it in actual substance.

Such rules, of course, must be followed not simply by governmental spokespersons but by the mainstream media. If we all love our wars, we won’t be living in a “divided nation.”

“The rapid reconquest of the capital, Kabul, by the Taliban after two decades of a staggeringly expensive, bloody effort to establish a secular government with functioning security forces in Afghanistan is, above all, unutterably tragic.

“Tragic because the American dream of being the ‘indispensable nation’ in shaping a world where the values of civil rights, women’s empowerment and religious tolerance rule proved to be just that: a dream.”

The takeaway here, of course, is that nothing has been learned, the annual U.S. military budget is still in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars, and China looms as our potential next enemy — that is, the challenger to our global idealism. We want to empower women, for God’s sake, and we’ll drop as many bombs as necessary to give them — at least those who survive — the right to get an education.

What seems not to be part of the editorial board’s sense of unutterable tragedy is this:

At the conclusion of twenty years of occupation and at a cost of one to two trillion dollars,” write Ben Phillips and Jonathan Glennie at Inter Press Service, “Afghanistan has been left the poorest country per capita in Asia; the number of Afghans in poverty has doubled; half of the population is dependent on humanitarian assistance; half lack access to drinkable water; poppy cultivation has trebled and opium production is at its height.”

And as Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies point out, “Even as UN agencies warn of an impending humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the U.S. Treasury has frozen nearly all of the Afghan Central Bank’s $9.4 billion in foreign currency reserves, depriving the new government of funds that it will desperately need in the coming months to feed its people and provide basic services.

“. . .instead of atoning for our role in keeping most Afghans mired in poverty, Western leaders are now cutting off desperately needed economic and humanitarian aid that was funding three quarters of Afghanistan’s public sector and made up 40 percent of its total GDP.”

While President Biden’s decision to end the 20-year war is necessary and no doubt politically courageous, it’s not enough. Many — perhaps a majority — of Americans know this, but . . . so what? Militarism, and its corporate beneficiaries, still rule, basically with a public shrug of “that’s just the way it is.”

This. Must. Change.

And I believe the time for change is now. The American empire is floundering in chaos of its own making and progressives are claiming political traction. After Biden announced the withdrawal, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) tweeted: “America’s longest war is finally over. As we continue working to help our allies and welcome Afghan refugees with open arms, let’s also commit to stopping endless wars once and for all.”

And Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-California) said, “The answer cannot be more war and violence. The answer cannot be launching more ineffective and unaccountable counterterrorism operations.” She added, according to Truthout, that the United States “owes it to all those who lost their lives to not commit the same mistakes” in the wake of Sept. 11.

Let us not let such words evaporate as soon as we declare our next enemy. Simply suggesting change — wishing and hoping for it — is never adequate. Overcoming war is probably as enormous an effort as waging it, and perhaps one place to start is with . . . get ready: a truth commission. Truly, truly the time has come to make all the realities of war, horrific and otherwise, fully public,

Let’s open the books, declassify the secrets and lies, let our vets talk about PTSD and moral injury, let refugees talk about loved ones found in the rubble, let the corporate militarists disclose their finances, and demand full coverage by the media.

The first step in ending war is seeing it for what it is. I realize how terrifying this must seem to those who have secrets to hide, to those who have accepted the façade of idealism — “we’re fighting for freedom!” — and allowed this façade to justify murder. But the point isn’t condemnation. The point is transcendence.

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Advanced nuclear reactors need the government to create a market – nuclear loves socialism

……….………. Advanced reactors are in a position where they need a HALEU supply for commercialization of their technology to be possible, but there needs to be commercial market with demand for the fuel in place for the HALEU supply to get off the ground, according to nuclear engineer Matthew Corradini, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin. “It’s a chicken and egg situation,” he said

One solution proposed by NEI is for the federal government to create the market ………….

Nuclear reactors of the future have a fuel problem, Utility Dive

Higher levels of uranium enrichment can unlock value from smaller and simpler reactors, but they come with new hurdles that the nuclear industry says only the federal government can address. Aug. 30, 2021 By Matthew Bandyk

President Joe Biden entered office being hailed by nuclear power advocates as perhaps the most pro-nuclear-energy president ever. He followed up his campaign trail discussions of nuclear energy as a necessary source of carbon-free emissions with a budget that proposed a record-setting $1.85 billion for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy

But many in the nuclear industry are concerned that the budget does not sufficiently address a problem that could prevent nuclear reactors of the future from being able to function. The impasse would stand even if technological advancements to make nuclear energy technology cheaper and easier to operate are realized. Some of the most prominent of these next-generation reactor designs can only run on a fuel for which there is no commercial supply chain currently — and building that supply chain could take years and lots of political will, according to reactor developers and nuclear fuel supply companies alike.

The nuclear industry, beset by massive cost overruns in the construction of current-generation reactors, has placed its hopes for new nuclear capacity in “advanced” or “next-generation” reactor designs, a broad category that includes everything from smaller versions of conventional light-water reactors to designs that eschew water entirely in favor of other cooling substances in the nuclear core like helium or salt. These reactors have the potential to help achieve decarbonization goals [an unlikely claim, and certainly not in time for the urgent climate need] by replacing fossil fuel plants, powering the production of clean hydrogen and firming renewable energy, among other possibilities. Several companies are developing designs and targeting deployment of their first commercial demonstration projects over the next decade.

Both the Biden and Trump administrations have supported research and development efforts toward advanced reactors, and Congress has passed legislation intended to streamline the regulatory path ahead. But the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the primary trade association for the nuclear industry, argues that if advanced reactors are to succeed, the federal government needs to do much more to create a domestic market for this fuel. “The commercialization of many advanced nuclear technologies is in jeopardy,” NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick said in a 2020 letter to then-U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette.

The biggest policy change advocated by NEI is for the federal government to sign a contract with a nuclear fuel supplier to essentially create a new market.

Both the Biden and Trump administrations have supported research and development efforts toward advanced reactors, and Congress has passed legislation intended to streamline the regulatory path ahead. But the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the primary trade association for the nuclear industry, argues that if advanced reactors are to succeed, the federal government needs to do much more to create a domestic market for this fuel. “The commercialization of many advanced nuclear technologies is in jeopardy,” NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick said in a 2020 letter to then-U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette.

What is HALEU?

What most of the advanced reactor developers seeking Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval have in common, however, is that they would not be fueled by the form of uranium used in most nuclear power plants operating around the world today. Rather, they would use a form that is more highly enriched — or, to be more specific, has been made into a more fissionable form by using technology such as centrifuges to alter the balance of protons and neutrons in the uranium……….

TerraPower, the Bill Gates-funded startup that is developing the Natrium sodium fast reactor with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, is also banking on HALEU. While, at 345-MW, the Natrium reactor is much larger than Oklo’s, TerraPower’s design also relies on the high uranium-235 content of HALEU to allow the reactor to run efficiently, particularly when ramping up or down to follow changes in load driven by renewable energy. TerraPower declined to comment for this story. The startup and Centrus have said they plan to work together to expand HALEU production after Centrus’s DOE contract ends in 2022.

……………….. Advanced reactors are in a position where they need a HALEU supply for commercialization of their technology to be possible, but there needs to be commercial market with demand for the fuel in place for the HALEU supply to get off the ground, according to nuclear engineer Matthew Corradini, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin. “It’s a chicken and egg situation,” he said

One solution proposed by NEI is for the federal government to create the market ………….   https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-reactors-of-the-future-have-a-fuel-problem/604707/

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Since 9/11, US Has Spent $21 Trillion on Militarism at Home and Abroad

Since 9/11, US Has Spent $21 Trillion on Militarism at Home and Abroad  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/01/911-us-has-spent-21-trillion-militarism-home-and-abroad“Our $21 trillion investment in militarism has cost far more than dollars.” JAKE JOHNSONSeptember 1, 2021

In the 20 years since the September 11 attacks, the United States government has spent more than $21 trillion at home and overseas on militaristic policies that led to the creation of a vast surveillance apparatus, worsened mass incarceration, intensified the war on immigrant communities, and caused incalculable human suffering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and elsewhere.

According to State of Insecurity: The Cost of Militarization Since 9/11 (pdf), a report released Wednesday by the National Priorities Project, the U.S. government’s so-called “War on Terror” has “remade the U.S. into a more militarized actor both around the world and at home” by pouring vast resources into the Pentagon, federal law enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency established in response to the September 11 attacks.

Released in the wake of the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after two decades of devastating war and occupation, the new report argues that the Taliban’s rapid takeover of the country “raises deep questions about our military investments to date.”

“Twenty years ago, we were promised a vision of the War on Terror that did not come to pass: that Afghanistan would not become a quagmire, or that the Iraq War would be over in ‘five weeks or five days or five months’ and cost a mere $60 billion,” the report notes. “As the country went to war and refocused domestic security spending on terrorism, few had any inkling of the far-reaching ramifications for the military, veterans, immigration, or domestic law enforcement.”

The National Priorities Project (NPP), an initiative of the Institute for Policy Studies, estimates that of the $21 trillion the U.S. invested in “foreign and domestic militarization” in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, $16 trillion went to the military, $3 trillion to veterans’ programs, $949 billion to DHS, and $732 billion to federal law enforcement.

In addition to fueling death and destruction overseas, the new report stresses that spending on overseas wars heightened domestic militarization, making police crackdowns on dissent at home even more violent.

There is evidence that the War on Terror drove transfers of military equipment to police, as surges ended and the Pentagon looked to divest from surplus equipment,” the analysis notes. “Transfers in 2010, when the military was still deeply engaged in the War on Terror, totaled $30 million. Over the next few years, the U.S. pulled forces out of Iraq, and military equipment transfers skyrocketed, peaking at $386 million in 2014. Today, transfers are still far higher than they were early in the War on Terror, totaling $152 million in 2020 and $101 million in just the first half of 2021.”

Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of NPP and lead author of the new report, said in a statement Wednesday that “our $21 trillion investment in militarism has cost far more than dollars.”

There is evidence that the War on Terror drove transfers of military equipment to police, as surges ended and the Pentagon looked to divest from surplus equipment,” the analysis notes. “Transfers in 2010, when the military was still deeply engaged in the War on Terror, totaled $30 million. Over the next few years, the U.S. pulled forces out of Iraq, and military equipment transfers skyrocketed, peaking at $386 million in 2014. Today, transfers are still far higher than they were early in the War on Terror, totaling $152 million in 2020 and $101 million in just the first half of 2021.”

Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of NPP and lead author of the new report, said in a statement Wednesday that “our $21 trillion investment in militarism has cost far more than dollars.”

  • $4.5 trillion could fully decarbonize the U.S. electric grid;
  • $2.3 trillion could create five million $15-per-hour jobs with benefits and cost-of-living adjustments for 10 years;
  • $1.7 trillion could erase student debt;
  • $449 billion could continue the extended Child Tax Credit for another 10 years;
  • $200 billion could guarantee free preschool for every 3-and-4-year old for 10 years, and raise teacher pay; and
  • $25 billion could provide Covid vaccines for the population of low-income countries.
  • The NPP report was published on same day that Brown University’s Costs of War Project released a new analysis estimating that U.S.-led post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have killed at least 929,000 people—a figure deemed likely to be a “vast undercount”—and cost more than $8 trillion.”The end of the war in Afghanistan represents a chance to reinvest in our real needs,” Koshgarian said Wednesday. “Twenty years from now, we could live in a world made safer by investments in infrastructure, job creation, support for families, public health, and new energy systems, if we are willing to take a hard look at our priorities.”

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Oblivion and 9 Other Best Dystopian Films About Nuclear War

Oblivion & 9 Other Best Dystopian Films About Nuclear War

Whether they show the build-up, detonation, or aftermath of a nuclear war, these movies portray those disasters better than others. Screen Rant BY TRICIA MAWIRE, 1 Sept 21,  Nothing is more thrilling and simultaneously terrifying like a film about nuclear war. From the build-up to the detonation and aftermath of the attack, every minute is an emotional experience using fiction to show the grim reality of such a disaster. Although not all these movies show a post-apocalyptic dystopian world, those that do paint quite a picture of what life would be like when disaster strikes.

……On The Beach (1959)………………    . With the central theme being the end of the world, there are no happy endings in this one, even for the romance storyline which has a tragic ending.   


Dr. Strangelove (1964)……….  As one of Stanley Kubrick’s best productions, the film combines humor and the doom and gloom of nuclear warfare to create a feeling of comic dread throughout its run. ……..


Testament (1983)…………. Testament is an emotionally devastating film with an accurate depiction of the fallout of a nuclear war. The factual accuracy of the impact and effects of such a disaster are haunting, leaving a heartwrenching image in the minds of all who watch the movie.

Special Bulletin (1983)………. a group of terrorists threatens to detonate a homemade nuclear device if the U.S. government doesn’t agree to hand over the triggers for their nuclear weapons. 
The Day After (1983)………  depicts ordinary people living their lives, the terrifying build-up to the disaster, and the aftermath of the nuclear attack. This approach shows the audience how easily an ordinary day can turn tragic within seconds.

Threads (1984)……….. 
 struggles to survive the post-apocalyptic world where food has become the only thing of value and the cause of many fights……  Most dystopian movies about nuclear war have a grim tone, but Threads takes it a notch higher. It shows the horrifying reality of a nuclear war, highlighting the message that no one wins when it comes to such a tragedy. From the beginning right until the heartbreaking end, Threads is unrelentingly dreadful.

When The Wind Blows (1986)……..Despite the animated nature of the film, it captures the couple’s emotions throughout the attack in a way that’s touching and relatable……Miracle Mile (1988)………. mainly focuses on the leading moments before the attack, capturing Harry’s panic and the doubts of the unconfirmed attack he keeps warning others about….

The Divide (2011) ………. an interesting take on a post-apocalyptic world that captures the sentiment “survival of the fittest” in a brutal way. It holds the audience’s attention but is one of those creepy movies fans wouldn’t watch twice.

Oblivion (2013)……  
 The post-apocalyptic action flick paints a gruesome picture of a war-torn planet….  https://screenrant.com/oblivion-best-dystopian-films-about-nuclear-war/

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kean says states may carve own path on energy transition, flags talks with coal owners — RenewEconomy

‘Whether Canberra likes it or not, we’ve got to crack on with it’, Kean signals states could leave Morrison government behind in transition to clean energy. The post Kean says states may carve own path on energy transition, flags talks with coal owners appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Kean says states may carve own path on energy transition, flags talks with coal owners — RenewEconomy

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Missing in action:” Former defence chief says Australia failing on climate change — RenewEconomy

New report says failure of leadership by Australian governments has left country ill-prepared for the security implications of devastating climate impacts. The post “Missing in action:” Former defence chief says Australia failing on climate change appeared first on RenewEconomy.

“Missing in action:” Former defence chief says Australia failing on climate change — RenewEconomy

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CopperString gets transmission approval for Townsville to Mt Isa renewables link — RenewEconomy

CopperString reaches key milestone with transmission authority, but still needs approvals and deal with governments and customers. The post CopperString gets transmission approval for Townsville to Mt Isa renewables link appeared first on RenewEconomy.

CopperString gets transmission approval for Townsville to Mt Isa renewables link — RenewEconomy

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment