Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. 

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Enough is enough for Albanese on Assange: our allies may respect us if we say this more. https://johnmenadue.com/enough-is-enough-for-albanese-on-assange-our-allies-may-respect-us-if-we-say-this-more/ By Alison Broinowski, Dec 2, 2022

The Prime Minister’s surprise revelation that he has raised the case against Julian Assange with US officials and urged that charges of espionage and conspiracy be dropped opens up many questions.

Mr Albanese thanked Dr Monique Ryan for her question on Wednesday 31 November, giving what appeared to be a carefully prepared and timed answer. The Independent MP for Kooyong sought to know what political intervention the government would make in the case, observing that public interest journalism is essential in a democracy.

The news flashed around between Assange supporters in and outside Parliament, and reached the Guardian, the Australian, SBS, and Monthly online. Neither the ABC nor the Sydney Morning Herald carried the story, even the next day. SBS reported that Brazil’s president-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed support for the campaign to free Assange.

But two days earlier, on Monday 29 November, the New York Times and four major European papers had printed an open letter to the US Attorney-General Merrick Garland, deploring the assault on media freedom which the pursuit of Assange represented.

The NYT, the Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais were the papers which in 2010 received and published some of the 251,000 classified US documents provided by Assange, many revealing American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gave them to Assange, who redacted names of people he considered could be harmed by publication. A senior Pentagon serving officer later confirmed that no-one had died as a result. Manning was imprisoned, and then pardoned by Obama. Assange spent seven years in diplomatic asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London before British police removed him and he was imprisoned for breach of bail condition.

Assange has been in Belmarsh high security prison for three years, in poor physical and mental health. Court proceedings against him over extradition to face trial in the US have been farcical, biased, oppressive, and excessively prolonged.

In Opposition, Albanese said ‘Enough is enough’ for Assange, and he has at last done something about it in Government. What exactly, with whom, and why now, we don’t yet know. The PM’s hand may have been forced by the major dailies’ letter to Attorney-General Garland, which made Australian politicians and media appear to be doing nothing. Or he may have raised the Assange case in his recent meetings with Biden, at the G20 for example.

Another possibility is that he was talked into it by Assange’s barrister, Jennifer Robinson, who met with him in mid-November and spoke about the case at the National Press Club. When I asked if she could say if she and Albanese discussed Assange, she smiled and said ‘No’ – meaning she couldn’t, not that they didn’t.

Monique Ryan made the point that this is a political situation, requiring political action. By raising it with US officials, Albanese has moved away from the previous government’s position that Australia couldn’t interfere in British or American legal processes, and that ‘justice must take its course’. That wasn’t the approach Australia took to secure the freedom of Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, imprisoned for espionage in Iran, or of Dr Sean Turnell from jail in Myanmar. It isn’t Australia’s approach in China either, where a journalist and an academic remain in detention.

By taking up Assange’s case, Albanese is doing nothing more than the US always does when one of its citizens is detained anywhere, or than the UK and Canada quickly did when their nationals were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Australia allowed Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks to spend much longer in US custody before negotiating their release. We might gain more respect from our allies if we adopted their speedy approach to these cases, than we do by subservience to British and American justice.

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Even though Biden once called Assange a ‘hi-tech terrorist’, as President he is now an advocate of human rights and democratic freedoms. This might be a good time for him to put them into practice. Doing so would make both Biden and Albanese look better than their predecessors.

December 5, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, politics international | Leave a comment

South Australian Premier and Opposition leader enthuse about nuclear military submarines, and nuclear power, except for the costs.

Premier Peter Malinauskas says SA submarines will help ‘bust myths’ over nuclear power.

Adelaide-based submarine construction will bust “ill-founded” ideological myths about atomic safety – according to the Premier – as he opens the door to nuclear power.

Paul StarickEditor At Large, The Advertiser, December 4, 2022 .

Premier Peter Malinauskas has opened the door to nuclear power, arguing Adelaide-based submarine construction will bust “ill-founded” ideological myths about atomic safety.

In an exclusive interview with The Advertiser, Mr Malinauskas said building at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact would demonstrate safety concerns were based on decades-old sentiment.

Mr Malinauskas argued people dedicated to decarbonising the electricity grid to tackle global warming should be open-minded about nuclear power, but cost was a prohibitive barrier to Australia embracing the technology at this stage.

Declaring United States and United Kingdom partners had a military nuclear safety record spanning decades, Mr Malinauskas said this emphasised the critical need to ensure Australia had the technical capability to install and maintain submarine reactors, as planned under the AUKUS pact.

“(Adelaide submarine construction) will go a long way to allaying some of the fears that exist around safety. I think it’ll demonstrate that the safety concerns are more based on things from decades and decades ago,” Mr Malinauskas said.

“I think that’ll be good in terms of community sentiment, and help bust a few myths. In respect of my position on nuclear power for civil consumption, or use, I’ve always thought that the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded.

“Nuclear power is a source of baseload energy with zero carbon emissions. So, for someone like myself, who is dedicated to a decarbonisation effort, I think we should be open-minded to those technologies and I think it would be foolhardy to have a different approach.”

Mr Malinauskas said his biggest reservation about nuclear power for Australia and SA was cost.

“We are facing next year, if all the reports are true, one of the biggest price challenges in terms of energy in the history of the nation.

“It would be madness to contemplate sources of energy that are more expensive than the ones that we already have.”

Mr Malinauskas said extraordinary technological advancement would be required for nuclear power to be economic for the state and nation, because of high transmission costs for a dispersed, comparatively small population base and industrial demand.

He argued nuclear power stacked up economically in regions with large cities exceeding Australia’s entire population, with huge industrial demand for electricity.

Seeking to forge a “third-way” position on nuclear power, Mr Malinauskas declared he did not believe the vast capital cost of nuclear power would be recovered through supply volume in Australia.

“I get frustrated with a nuclear debate that has emerged in Australia recently because you’ve got people on the left who seem to be flat out opposed to nuclear power for ideological reasons, despite the fact we’ve got a climate challenge and wanting to decarbonise,” he said.

“Then we’ve got people on the right who seem to be utterly in favour of nuclear power, without any reference to the cost of it.

“It strikes me as starting to become one of these polarised debates that has been consumed by the culture wars, rather than an evidence-based discussion on what is good for decarbonisation, and what is good for price.”

At least eight nuclear-powered submarines will be built at Osborne Naval Shipyard, in Adelaide’s northwest, under the AUKUS pact forged in September last year, with details to be unveiled in March.

This was branded “one of the greatest national endeavours of the Australian story” by Defence Minister Richard Marles, who told the Sunday Mail luring workers to defence was a full-blown crisis keeping ministers “up at night”.

A joint state and federal taskforce formed in September to ensure SA-based defence projects would “have a highly skilled workforce to draw on” is expected to produce a blueprint by next October.

Declaring the nuclear-powered submarine construction would boost industrial complexity, jobs, incomes and skills, Mr Malinauskas amplified previous comments that the 10,000-job boom would make Holden car manufacturing “look like small beer”.

“Modern manufacturing history globally is full of examples where car manufacturing starts and then it stops – comes to a town, leaves the town. That’s not just true of Adelaide but with plenty of places around the world,” he said.

“But when it comes to building nuclear submarines, there is no nuclear submarine supply chain that has ever started and then stopped. They only start and keep going.

So, what we’re talking about here is something that literally could take us well into the next century, at the highest skill level. On every level, Holden pales into insignificance.”

Mr Malinauskas said he had “every confidence” the submarines would be built in Adelaide, as promised, but said he understood scepticism after the French deal to build 12 conventionally powered submarines was torn up for AUKUS.

Opposition Leader David Speirs said the state’s skills transformation for the nuclear submarine supply chain would require serious political leadership from the Premier but vowed bipartisan support, declaring this was not “an overly political thing”.

“It has the potential to be transformational, in every aspect of life in South Australia. The number of workers who will be required, the type of skills that will be needed to be exemplified by those workers and the type of a technological transformation that will be needed is the sort of change that our state would not have seen anything like this since industrialisation,” he said.

“There is an incredible opportunity here. It’s not without its risks but South Australia is well placed to grab hold of that opportunity, as long as we line up various aspects of our workforce, our skills matrix and work out what government’s role is there to drive all of this forward.”

Asked whether developing a military-based nuclear industry should result in nuclear power, Mr Speirs said he believed he and Mr Malinauskas “were quite close on this matter”.

“One of the great ironies of South Australia is that we have these huge uranium deposits, among the largest in the world, and yet we don’t have a nuclear power industry in Australia,” he said.

“There will be growth in this sector across the world. We’re going to have to get in place those skills around safety and technical expertise to have the submarine build in Australia, so there is an opportunity to extend that conversation to power production.”

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Guinea Pig Nation’- Lax rules for new reactors deliberately endanger communities

“Make no mistake about it—while NRC is doing its part to serve nuclear industry needs, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the aggressive pro-nuclear agenda of the Biden Administration that has unleashed a juggernaut of financial and PR support for new nuclear reactors. Everything from the tens of billions of dollars allocated for new nuclear in the Infrastructure Act and the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act, which establishes a nuclear power production tax credit], to the national dog-and-pony show [the recent U.S. tour promoting nuclear power] of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, demonstrates the administration’s intentions to run roughshod over the objections of the public. We have a hard fight ahead of us.”

‘Guinea Pig Nation’ — Beyond Nuclear International NRC will weaken regulations for new “advanced” reactors says scientist
By Karl Grossman
“Guinea Pig Nation: How the NRC’s new licensing rules could turn communities into test beds for risky, experimental nuclear plants,” is what physicist Dr. Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, titled his presentation last week.

The talk was about how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is involved in a major change of its “rules” and “guidance” to reduce government regulations for what the nuclear industry calls “advanced” nuclear power plants.

Already, Lyman said, at a “Night with the Experts” online session organized by the Nuclear Energy Information Service, the NRC has moved to allow nuclear power plants to be built in thickly populated areas. This “change in policy” was approved in a vote by NRC commissioners in July. 

For a more than a half-century, the NRC and its predecessor agency, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, sought to have nuclear power plants sited in areas of “low population density”—because of the threat of a major nuclear plant accident.

But, said Lyman, who specializes in nuclear power safety, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, the NRC in a decision titled “Population-Related Siting Considerations for Advanced Reactors,” substantially altered this policy. 

The lone NRC vote against the change came from Commissioner Jeffery Baran who in casting his ‘no’ vote wrote “Multiple, independent layers of protection against potential radiological exposure are necessary because we do not have perfect knowledge of new reactor technologies and their unique potential accident scenarios….Unlike light-water reactors, new advanced reactor designs do not have decades of operating experience; in many cases, the new designs have never been built or operated before.” 

He noted a NRC “criteria” document which declared that the agency “has a longstanding policy of siting nuclear reactors away from densely populated centers and preferring areas of low population density.”

But, said Baran, under the new policy, a “reactor could be sited within a town of 25,000 people and right next to a large city. For reactor designs that have not been deployed before and do not have operating experience, that approach may be insufficiently protective of public health and safety…And it would not maintain the key defense-in-depth principle of having prudent siting limitations regardless of the features of a particular reactor design—a principle that has been a bedrock of nuclear safety.”

That is just one of the many reductions proposed in safety standards.

“The central issue,” commented Lyman in an interview following his November 17th presentation, “is that the NRC is accepting on faith that these new reactors are going to be safer and wants to adjust its regulations accordingly, to make them less stringent—on faith.”

The key motivation, he said, behind the nuclear industry’s push to significantly weaken safety standards is that the line of smaller nuclear power plants the nuclear industry is now pushing—including what it calls the “small modular nuclear reactor”— are going to be “much more expensive” than the existing light-water nuclear power plants, the most common type of nuclear power plant, which are large and are cooled by plain water. Thus, he said, these “advanced” nuclear plants would be more costly to operate than using energy alternatives, “certainly wind and solar.”

And the NRC is complying with the nuclear industry.

It’s a demonstration of one of the alternatives for the acronym for the NRC—Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission.

The list of proposed safety reductions in the PowerPoint portion of Lyman’s presentation under “Cutting corners on safety and security to cut costs,” and what the nuclear industry “wants” in what the NRC calls its “Part 53” assemblage of changes, included, in addition to the already completed alteration of

siting criteria:

  • Allowing nuclear power plants to have a “small containment—or no physical containment at all.” Containments are the domes over nuclear plants to try to contain radioactive releases in an accident.
  • “No offsite emergency planning requirements.” The NRC has been requiring emergency planning including the designation of a 10-mile evacuation zone around a nuclear power plant.
  • “Fewer or even zero operators.” The nuclear industry would like advanced nuclear plants to operate “autonomously.”
  • Letting the plants have “fewer” NRC “inspections and weaker enforcement.”
  • “Reduced equipment reliability reporting.” 
  • “Applications” for an advanced reactor “should contain minimal information.”
  • “The NRC’s review standards should be lenient.”
  • Letting the plants have “fewer inspections and weaker enforcement.”
  • “Fewer back-up safety systems.”
  • “Regulatory requirements should be few in number and vague.”
  • “Zero” armed security personnel to try to protect an advanced nuclear power plant from terrorists. 

What the industry wants

from Part 53

  • Regulatory requirements should be few in number and vague. – details should go in non-binding guidance.
  • Applications should contain minimal  detail. 
  • The NRC’s review standards should be lenient. 
  • Fewer inspections and weaker enforcement.

The Nuclear Energy Information Service’s summary of his presentation stated: “Under the direction of Congress, the NRC is developing new regulations to facilitate licensing of experimental reactors by relaxing safety security standards and by relying on safety demonstrations that utilize computer simulations rather than experimental data. The major focus of this effort, known as ‘Part 53,’ is being written with an unprecedented level of industry involvement. If ‘Part 53’ is enacted, first-of-a kind reactors would be located in densely populated urban areas without any promise for emergency evacuation, planning, without security forces to protect against terrorist attack, and without highly trained operators—and all without meaningful opportunities for public input.”

These “are sometimes referred to as ‘advanced reactors.’ However, that is a misnomer for most designs being pursued today…largely descend from those proposed many decades ago,” the report continued.  

“In part,” it went on, “the nuclear industry’s push to commercialize NLWRs is driven by its desire to show the public and policymakers that there is a high-tech alternative to the static, LWR-dominated status quo: a new generation of ‘advanced’ reactors. But a fundamental question remains: Is different actually better? The short answer is no. Nearly all of the NLWRs currently on the drawing board fail to provide significant enough improvements over LWRs to justify their considerable risks.”

In the report, Lyman extensively examines issues involving each of the NLWR (Non Light Water Reactors) or “advanced” reactors. 

David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, after Lyman’s talk said in an interview: “Dr. Lyman warns us all once again how largely beholden to the nuclear industry the NRC is. NRC is willing to twist and contort even reasonable safety regulations in ways that cater to nuclear industry desires to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a children’s party. It is this kind of almost institutionalized acquiescence to industry wants that has led many to believe that NRC stands for Not Really Concerned.”

Kraft continued: “Make no mistake about it—while NRC is doing its part to serve nuclear industry needs, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the aggressive pro-nuclear agenda of the Biden Administration that has unleashed a juggernaut of financial and PR support for new nuclear reactors. Everything from the tens of billions of dollars allocated for new nuclear in the Infrastructure Act and the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act, which establishes a nuclear power production tax credit], to the national dog-and-pony show [the recent U.S. tour promoting nuclear power] of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, demonstrates the administration’s intentions to run roughshod over the objections of the public. We have a hard fight ahead of us.”

Founded in 1981, Nuclear Energy Information Service is among the safe-energy, anti-nuclear organizations that are challenging the NRC’s effort to change its “rules” and “guidance” to boost “advanced” nuclear plants. It plans to soon post through its website a recording of Lyman’s Zoom presentation.

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Macron pushes a “renaissance” while French nuclear flops

A farce that would make Feydeau blush — Beyond Nuclear International

A farce that would make Feydeau blush — Beyond Nuclear International

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

China keeps aggressively surrounding itself with US bases: notes from the edge of The Narrative Matrix

We’ll either move from competition-based systems to collaboration-based ones, eliminating all the obstacles necessary for us to do so, or we will go extinct. We are at our adapt-or-die juncture as a species.

Pearls and Irritations, By Guest writer Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 2, 2022

It still amazes me how many people who fancy themselves anti-establishment critical thinkers will spend all day mindlessly regurgitating mainstream media lines about China.

* There are Chinese people with real grievances against their government.

* The US empire’s propaganda machine will spin current protests in China to advance imperial agendas.

* Western intelligence agencies will become more and more involved in these protests the longer they go on.

I cannot emphasise enough how little respect I have for anyone who parrots US empire narratives about China and how completely dismissive I am of all their attempts to explain to me that it’s actually right and good to do this. Literally all of our major problems are because of the people who rule over us; if you’re buying into the narrative that who we should really be mad at right now is a government on the other side of the planet with no power over us, you’re a fucking loser. You’re a bootlicking empire simp. You’re worthless, bleating human livestock.

Why does China keep aggressively surrounding itself with US military bases?

Everyone knows the US has invaded countries completely unprovoked very recently and will definitely do so again, but we still have to pretend that Putin is the worst thing since Hitler.

It’s disturbing how many people I encounter who claim Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is worse than America’s invasion of Iraq because Ukraine is a “democracy”. How fucked up do you have to be inside to believe human lives are worth less because of their nation’s political system?

Leaving aside the fact that a nation which bans political parties, shuts down opposition media, imprisons opposition leaders, and is vastly more accountable to Washington than to its own people is in no way a “democracy”, that’s just a profoundly disturbed way of looking at life. A mother holding the remains of a child whose body has been ripped apart by military explosives does not care whether her country is considered a “democracy” by the western governments who are invested in that country’s military outcomes.

Rightists correctly believe that liberals subscribe to an artificially constructed worldview designed by the powerful in the service of the powerful, but incorrectly believe that they themselves do not.

Common debates:

* Which status quo party is best

* Which side of the culture war is correct

* How the western empire should act

* What capitalism should look like

Uncommon debates:

* Should status quo politics exist

* Should the western empire exist

* Should capitalism exist

* Should class war replace culture war

And it is of course entirely by design that the former are common and the latter are uncommon. Keeping everyone debating how establishment power structures should exist, rather than if they should, ensures the survival of those power structures.

It’s actually a really big problem that the most visible “left” in the US is completely worthless on war and militarism. When Americans who are critical of those things look right and see people like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson doing something then look left and see AOC and Bernie doing nothing, which side do you think they’ll choose?

And of course this is because the so-called progressive Democrats are not “left” in any meaningful way, but your average mainstream American doesn’t know that, and perception is reality. The US is the nation where antiwar sentiment is most important and the most urgently needed, and it’s been buried on the left. Americans are trained that Clintonites are “centre-left” and AOC/Bernie are “far left”, and anyone further to the left than them on foreign policy is demonised by these progressives as a Russian agent. This creates the very understandable impression that the entire left is pro-war.

When you’ve got Ilhan Omar and AOC calling people who protest US proxy warfare at their rallies Russian operatives and antiwar leftists like Jill Stein branded as Kremlin agents, the message mainstream Americans come away with is that antiwar sentiment is only welcome on the right.

Again, I get this isn’t true and there’s lots of antiwar sentiment on the true left in the US, but nobody sees that left. It’s denied any media presence or political validity; mainstream Americans don’t know the difference between an anti-imperialist socialist and a Berner. This causes antiwar Americans to drift to the right; I’ve watched it happen in real time with some of my US followers. I do my best to make the case for the left, but I’m just one voice amid a surging deluge of messaging they’re getting that the real opposition is on the right.

Naming your war machinery after the Indigenous tribes your government genocided is the modern-day equivalent of wearing the skulls of your enemies on your war horse.

A lot of acceptance of the status quo worldview boils down to a failure of imagination. People literally can’t imagine the possibility that reality is as different as it is from what they’ve been told by their teachers, parents, pundits and politicians. It’s actually unfathomable to them, and that is because it’s so different. The world we’re trained to see by establishment perception managers is as different from the real world as any fictional world is.
The claim that capitalism is the best system for generating profits is basically correct; it’s hard to beat greed and starvation as a carrot and stick to get the gears of industry whirring. The issue here is that merely generating profits won’t solve most of the world’s problems, and in fact many of our problems come from the fact that capitalism is too effective at turning the gears of industry. Our biosphere is dying largely because capitalism values making lots of things but not un-making things; we’re choking our ecosystem to death because it’s profitable.

Capitalism has no real answers for problems like ecocide, inequality, exploitation and caring for the needful. Yes “let the markets decide” will generate lots of profits for those set up to harvest them, but profit-seeking cannot address those very serious problems. The “invisible hand of the market” gets treated as an actual deity that actually exists, with all the wisdom necessary to solve the world’s problems, but in reality the pursuit of money lacks any wisdom. It can’t solve our major problems, it can only make more stuff and generate more profit……………………………………….

We’ll either move from competition-based systems to collaboration-based ones, eliminating all the obstacles necessary for us to do so, or we will go extinct. We are at our adapt-or-die juncture as a species.  https://johnmenadue.com/china-keeps-aggressively-surrounding-itself-with-us-bases-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on biodiversity collapse: the crisis humanity can no longer ignore

The Guardian view on biodiversity collapse: the crisis humanity can no longer ignore

Guardian editorial

A million animal and plant species are perilously close to extinction. Their fate and ours are intimately connected

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s stunning Spring into the green energy future — RenewEconomy

The sheer scale of new targets, projects, records, and plans for Australia’s green energy future hit a record this Spring, after a decade of Coalition denial. The post Australia’s stunning Spring into the green energy future appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Australia’s stunning Spring into the green energy future — RenewEconomy

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NSW tops renewable energy superpower scorecard for first time — RenewEconomy

Investors were desperate for policy and now they’re getting it in swathes as Australian governments deliver a consistent diet of targets, laws and commitments. The post NSW tops renewable energy superpower scorecard for first time appeared first on RenewEconomy.

NSW tops renewable energy superpower scorecard for first time — RenewEconomy

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Only half of Australia’s biggest companies have net-zero emissions plans — RenewEconomy

Nearly 40% of ASX200 emissions are not yet covered by net-zero commitments, and much corporate climate action will come too late to keep 1.5℃ alive. The post Only half of Australia’s biggest companies have net-zero emissions plans appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Only half of Australia’s biggest companies have net-zero emissions plans — RenewEconomy

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australian super fund snaps up another two new wind farms in Victoria — RenewEconomy

Leading super fund has bought up two small wind farms in Victoria, adding a total of five wind turbines to its renewable energy portfolio. The post Australian super fund snaps up another two new wind farms in Victoria appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Australian super fund snaps up another two new wind farms in Victoria — RenewEconomy

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment