Very bad advice: $368b nuclear submarines and the Federal budget
Although he knows almost nothing about submarines, Albanese gave the go-ahead to acquire nuclear ones without insisting on a cost effectiveness study showing how they compare to modern conventional versions.
An objective study would’ve shown the latest conventional ones are superior – they are much harder to detect and are operationally available far more often because they don’t suffer few serious maintenance problems.
The program cost of twelve high quality conventional subs is only about $18 billion compared to $368 billion for 11 nuclear ones that repeatedly break down
.
By Brian Toohey https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-very-bad-advice/
At a time when the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise is adding to cost of living pressures and increasing the chances of a recession, Albanese is finding it hard to justify the staggering $368 billion cost of AUKUS nuclear submarines.
Anthony Albanese says it only took him 24 hours to decide to back the AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK and the US. And not much longer, it seems, to decide to get nuclear submarines, if not precisely how. The rush shows. At a time when the Reserve Bank’s interest rate rise is adding to cost of living pressures and increasing the chances of a recession, Albanese is finding it harder to justify the staggering $368 billion cost of these submarines. As explained below, this is 20 times more than 12 superior conventional submarines would cost.
So he’s taken to claiming the job creation benefits of building a handful of subs in Adelaide is just as important as the national security benefits. During his visit to England for the Coronation, Albanese visited Barrow-in-Furness where the Astute class nuclear submarines were built. The shipyard employs 11,000 people, which is due to rise to 17,000. Albanese said, “I see this is being very similar to what the car industry provided for Australia in the post-war period.” In fact, employment in car manufacturing in Australia was much higher at its peak. Employment dropped by 80,000 between 1973 and 1980, yet it was still 45,000 in 2015. Large sums of government funding failed to ensure car manufacturing survived.
Albanese’s government estimates that 20,000 jobs will be created by building seven submarines, called the AUKUS class, at Adelaide. Although sharing the design work for a highly complex product is rarely successful, it will be done in this case between the three AUKUS countries. The construction jobs won’t start to flow at discernible rate until shortly after 2040. Yet Albanese implies the job benefits will be available before the next election. If job creation is the goal, there are much better ways to achieve it.
Given Albanese’s excitement about the quality of the work done at Barrow-in-Furness, it’s worth looking at what actually happened. The National Interest reported in November 2021 that, although the first boat, HMS Astute, had been laid down in 2001, the key design and production facilities had atrophied, resulting in delays and cost overruns that continue to harry the program today. Basic drafting and engineering skills had deteriorated. Problems emerged with software used to design the sub. After HMS Astute entered service in 2014, the crew suffered from excessive heat. It ran aground during sea trials a month after delivery.
Earlier, the Guardian reported in 2012 that during exercises that year a pipe carrying seawater from the back of the submarine to the reactor sprang a leak, forcing the boat to surface. An investigation revealed that a cap was made from the wrong metal, but construction records said the right metal had been installed. The Guardian also said a lead-lined water jacket surrounding the reactor core was fitted with substandard lead, creating a risk that electrical charges in the lead could generate false readings in instruments monitoring the state of the reactor.
A confidential Ministry of Defence memo obtained by the Guardian says extensive corrosion is “a cause for major concern”. The memo said the damage means “severe problems” can be expected in future and warns that the submarines will have to spend more time than planned under repair. All is now supposed to be going well.
Although he knows almost nothing about submarines, Albanese gave the go-ahead to acquire nuclear ones without insisting on a cost effectiveness study showing how they compare to modern conventional versions. An objective study would’ve shown the latest conventional ones are superior – they are much harder to detect and are operationally available far more often because they don’t suffer few serious maintenance problems. The program cost of twelve high quality conventional subs is only about $18 billion compared to $368 billion for 11 nuclear ones that repeatedly break down.
In the circumstances, Albanese’s failure to consider conventional submarines before going nuclear was deeply irresponsible. Perhaps he wasn’t told by his advisors. In any event, no Australian official has publicly mentioned this huge drawback in acquiring nuclear submarines.
Quoting from secret US Navy documents, Newsweek on April 19 confirmed earlier authoritative reports showing that only a quarter of America’s Virginia class submarines are operationally available at any one time, due to highly complex maintenance problems. The highly regarded American defence analyst defence analyst Winslow Wheeler gave the same figure in 2021.
Surely someone in Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead Admiral Mead’s 350 strong advisory team group advising Albanese on nuclear submarines should have stumbled across it.
Mead gave an astonishing interview to the Guardian published on March 8 and 9 this year. Mead wrongly described Australia’s existing Collins class conventional submarines as “the most advanced in the world”. They are certainly not. They lack modern equipment such as fuel cells and advanced batteries that let submarines operate extremely quietly for sustained periods without having to rise to the surface to recharge their batteries every day or two, unlike the Collins class. Modern German, Japanese and South Korean ones are in this category. These submarines have low sustainment costs, unlike the Collins class where this burden has hit almost $700 million a year, not including fuel and crew costs. Taking the Collins out of service would free up billions in funding for new conventional submarines.
Because nuclear subs are significantly bigger than most conventional subs, they are easier to detect as they move through the earth’s magnetic field and the water column. Rapid advances in sensor power and computer processing increase the chances of subs’ detection – and destruction. Mead said he had taken account of the prospect oceans would become more transparent by 2050. His solution is to use underwater drones in places where you don’t want a nuclear submarine to be detected. That would be just about everywhere that the presence of nuclear submarine was supposed to be important. Apparently, the nuclear sub would control a drone at a safe distance. In this case, far cheaper platforms can be used to control the drones.
Nuclear power at least 15 years away, says regulator
Australia’s chief nuclear regulatory body has told a parliamentary inquiry how long it would take to legislate and build a nuclear power plant.
Anthony Anderson and Ellen Ransley 15 May 23, news.com.au
A senate inquiry examining whether Australia’s ban on nuclear energy should be lifted has been told it would take 10-15 years to have a power plant up and running if the moratorium was lifted right now.
The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee sat on Monday to discuss the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022.
The bill would see amendments made to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, effectively paving the way for nuclear power generation.
CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) Dr Gillian Hirth fronted the inquiry on Monday afternoon, where she was questioned about her organisation’s role in nuclear regulation.
Dr Hirth told the inquiry there would need to be a regulatory framework established for private nuclear generation, since ARPANSA only regulates Commonwealth projects.
“The time frames for implementation, if it were established today, you would be lucky to have it up and running in 15 years … 15 years would be the minimum,” said Dr Hirth.
“It can take three to five years to do a significant review of regulations in Australia … once they’re done, you’re looking at at least 10 years to develop facilities.”
The CSIRO also fronted the inquiry, with representatives grilled over data from 2018 showing nuclear would be prohibitively expensive for Australia.
The discussion focused on small modular reactors (SMRs), a technology of which CSIRO’s executive director for environment, energy, and resources, Dr Peter Mayfield, said there was limited information available……………………………………………………………..
The laws around nuclear technology will also need to be amended to enable Australia to take carriage of nuclear powered submarines, due to arrive in the early 2030s under the recently signed AUKUS agreement.
“(According to) our Act as it currently stands, we can’t regulate nuclear powered submarines,” said Dr Hirth.
“The proposed amendment, in the short term, seeks to give ARPANSA regulatory power until Defence can establish [their own body].”
Earlier, a number of executives in Australia’s leading nuclear industry associations and groups spruiked the benefits which nuclear energy could offer Australia……………………
The committee has twice been granted an extension to develop a report, which at the time of writing will be expected to be finalised on June 15. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nuclear-power-at-least-15-years-away-says-regulator/news-story/6b8c4ec9c94cd4d05471783678abdb59
Peter FitzSimons takes aim at schoolboy campaigning for nuclear energy with scathing Twitter post.
- William Shackel campaigns for nuclear power
- He has been criticised by Peter FitzSimons
- Journalist slammed ‘expensive’ nuclear energy
By DANYAL HUSSAIN FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 15 May 2023
Peter FitzSimons has called out a young Aussie teen for campaigning for nuclear energy.
Year 11 Brisbane boy William Shackel, 16, has drawn national publicity in recent months with his Nuclear for Australia campaign group.
Nuclear for Australia is an (?) independent, non-registered information campaign that advocates for the ban on nuclear energy in Australia to be lifted.
William posted a video on social media on Sunday documenting a trip to Canberra, where he is hoping to present a petition to parliament.
FitzSimons praised the young activist’s passion but claimed it had been ‘misplaced’ as he addressed the video in a Twitter post on Monday.
‘Onya for your passion, young man, as misplaced as it is. I stand to be corrected, but is nuclear energy not most expensive to produce?’ he wrote.
‘Why do that, when renewables are blooming, and cheap? Takes 10 years to build? ANYONE out there, who would welcome big or mini-reactor nearby?’
William outlined his support for nuclear power in an interview last Tuesday.
‘Nuclear is a really unique solution because unlike fossil fuels, nuclear is safe and it is clean,’ he told 6 News……………………………………………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12083987/Peter-FitzSimons-calls-William-Shackel-campaigns-nuclear-energy-Australia.htm1
Understanding The Highly Complex World Of Western China Analysis
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAY 15, 2023 https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/understanding-the-highly-complex?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=121463595&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
—
Former Pentagon official Elbridge Colby was interviewed on The National Review’s Charles CW Cooke Podcast, where he provided some very high-level analysis on the tensions around China, Taiwan, and the United States.
I will here attempt to explain some of Colby’s comments for the benefit of the average reader, because Colby has been studying these things for many years and his commentary can be a bit advanced and esoteric for the casual punditry consumer.
“The analogy I use is… Taiwan is like a man with a cut in the ocean, and China is like a great white shark, and America is like a man in a boat,” Colby said in the interview.
“The problem is once that great white shark starts moving, you got no time,” added Colby. “You’re done. You know, if you’re not already by the side of the boat, right? Because it’s a great white shark.”
Now bear with me if Colby’s incisive observations went a bit over your head here, but if we break it down I’m confident that we can all catch up to this man’s towering intellect enough to catch a glimpse of his understanding on the matter.
What Colby appears to be saying — and please correct me of you think I’m reading this wrong — is that China is like a Great White Shark, which as we all know is an extremely dangerous aquatic predator with a voracious appetite, capable of gulping down a human being in a few swift bites.
Now, try to imagine being in a situation where you’re out there in the ocean, and there’s a Great White Shark right there with you in the water. And to make matters worse, you’re bleeding — a problem not only due to the wound from whence the blood is emanating, but also because sharks can smell blood in the water! That would be pretty bad, right?
Okay, so are you with me so far? Remember, this is very advanced stuff, so feel free to read back and review as much as you need.
Now, imagine you’re in that situation with the cut and the shark, and there’s a boat that you can go to to get away from the shark. You’d want to hop aboard that vessel as swiftly as possible, don’t you think? I know I would!
So to put it all together, what the esteemed Elbridge Colby is telling us is that China is analogous to the Great White Shark which is eyeing the bleeding man in the water, and the man can be compared to Taiwan, and the United States of America is comparable to the boat that is coming to the rescue of the man.
Make sense? If you’re still struggling to comprehend Colby’s scalpel-like geopolitical analysis, don’t worry, because I’ve obtained this helpful infographic above, to further illuminate your understanding:
Interestingly enough, this is not the first time China has been compared to a Great White Shark in recent western punditry. The Hoover Institution’s Matt Pottinger, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, made a similar comparison in an interview with Nikkei Asia earlier this month:
“We saw a baby shark and thought that we could transform it into a dolphin over time, to become a friendly sort of system,” Pottinger said. “Instead, what we did was we kept feeding the shark and the shark got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And now we’re dealing with a formidable, great white.”
“With a shark you put up a shark cage,” added Pottinger. “The shark doesn’t take it personally. It bumps into the cage. It respects those barriers.”
Again, this is very complicated for the uninitiated layperson, but what Pottinger appears to be saying is that China is not at all comparable to a dolphin, which is an oceanic mammal known to be friendly toward people and easily trained to do tricks in aquatic theme parks. Rather, in Pottinger’s understanding, China is more comparable to a Great White Shark, which as you’ll recall from our discussion earlier in this essay is actually known to be rather dangerous.
If you’re still struggling to make sense of Pottinger’s luminous understanding, here’s another illustration to help make things a bit clearer:
If you need it simplified even further, another way to put it might be, CHINA BAD. SHARK BAD. CHINA LIKE SHARK. CHINA VERY, VERY BAD. BAD CHINA. BAD.
Again, don’t be hard on yourself if you can’t quite wrap your head around the high-level analysis of intellectual giants like Matt Pottinger and Elbridge Colby. If we could understand these things as well as they do, we’d be the ones earning big bucks from Washington think tanks, not them!
Well I think that’s enough work for your gray matter today. Have a rest and a nice sleep and come back fresh tomorrow, where we’ll be discussing some mind-blowing comparisons western analysts have been drawing between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.
Leak reveals Zelensky privately plots bold attacks inside Russia.(Is his halo slipping?)
They reveal a leader with aggressive instincts that sharply contrast with his public-facing image as the calm and stoic statesman.
Zelensky suggested Ukraine “conduct strikes in Russia”
“Zelensky highlighted that … Ukraine should just blow up the pipeline and destroy likely Hungarian [Prime Minister] Viktor Orban’s industry”
Zelensky then “suggested that Ukraine attack unspecified deployment locations in Rostov,” a region in western Russia, using drones instead, according to another classified document.
The Age, John Hudson and Isabelle Khurshudyan, May 14, 2023
Washington: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has won the trust of Western governments by refusing to use the weapons they provide for attacks inside Russia and prioritising the targeting of Russian forces inside Ukraine’s borders.
But behind closed doors, Ukraine’s leader has proposed going in a more audacious direction – occupying Russian villages to gain leverage over Moscow, bombing a pipeline that transfers Russian oil to Hungary, a NATO member, and privately pining for long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia’s borders, according to classified US intelligence documents detailing his internal communications with top aides and military leaders.
The documents, which have not been previously disclosed, are part of a broader leak of US secrets circulated on the Discord messaging platform and obtained by The Washington Post. They reveal a leader with aggressive instincts that sharply contrast with his public-facing image as the calm and stoic statesman weathering Russia’s brutal onslaught. The insights were gleaned through intercepted digital communications, providing a rare look at Zelensky’s deliberations amid Russian missile barrages, infrastructure attacks and war crimes.
The Pentagon, where senior US military leaders were briefed on the matters outlined in the leaked documents, did not dispute the authenticity of the materials.
In some cases, Zelensky is seen restraining the ambitions of his subordinates; in several others, he is the one proposing risky military actions.
In a meeting in late January, Zelensky suggested Ukraine “conduct strikes in Russia” while moving Ukrainian ground troops into enemy territory to “occupy unspecified Russian border cities,” according to one document labelled “top secret.” The goal would be “to give Kyiv leverage in talks with Moscow,” the document said.
In a separate meeting in late February with General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s top military commander, Zelensky “expressed concern” that “Ukraine does not have long-range missiles capable of reaching Russian troop deployments in Russia nor anything with which to attack them”. Zelensky then “suggested that Ukraine attack unspecified deployment locations in Rostov,” a region in western Russia, using drones instead, according to another classified document.
In a meeting in mid-February with Deputy Prime Minister Yuliya Svrydenko, Zelensky suggested Ukraine “blow up” the Soviet-built Druzhba pipeline that provides oil to Hungary. “Zelensky highlighted that … Ukraine should just blow up the pipeline and destroy likely Hungarian [Prime Minister] Viktor Orban’s industry, which is based heavily on Russian oil,” the document says.
In detailing the conversation, intelligence officials concede that Zelensky was “expressing rage toward Hungary and therefore could be making hyperbolic, meaningless threats,” a qualification that does not accompany the other accounts of Zelensky suggesting bold military action. Though Hungary is nominally part of the Western alliance, Orban is widely considered Europe’s most Kremlin-friendly leader.
When asked if he had suggested occupying parts of Russia, Zelensky, during an interview with The Washington Post in Kyiv, dismissed the US intelligence claims as “fantasies” but defended his right to use unconventional tactics in the defence of his country.
……………. The use of long-range missiles to hit inside Russia is a particularly sensitive topic for the White House, which has long worried that the Ukraine conflict could escalate out of control and force a catastrophic standoff between the United States and Russia, the world’s largest nuclear powers.
Though Washington has given Zelensky billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry, President Biden has steadily rebuffed the Ukrainian leader’s request for long-range ATACMS, shorthand for the Army Tactical Missile System, capable of striking targets up to 185 miles away. Since the start of the war, Biden has said the United States is “not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders”.
When asked about the intelligence indicating he had weighed the use of long-range missiles to hit Russia, Zelensky said it is not something Ukraine is entertaining. “No one in our country has given orders for offensives or strikes on Russian territory,” he said.
It is unclear whether the United States has shared accounts of Zelensky’s plotting with allied nations, but the Ukrainian president continues to enjoy the strong support of Western governments, which have provided him with an increasingly sophisticated array of weaponry.
This past week, Britain became the first Western country to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles. The Storm Shadow, a cruise missile system with stealth capabilities, has a range of 155 miles, far exceeding the 50-mile range of the US-provided HIMARS launchers.
British Defence Minister Ben Wallace said Friday that the missile would give Ukraine “the best chance” to defend itself and would be for use only “within Ukrainian sovereign territory.” A spokesman with the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment on whether Zelensky’s leaked remarks might give London pause about its decision.
The Biden administration says Zelensky’s intercepted comments are not the cause for withholding ATACMS.
“Ukraine has repeatedly committed to employ US-provided weapons responsibly and strategically when needed to counter Russian aggression, and we are confident that will continue to be the case,” said a US defence official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.
Since last year, Zelensky has promised that Ukraine would never use US weapons to strike inside Russia, a pledge the White House says he has fulfilled.
“President Zelensky has kept the promises he has made to President Biden, and we do not believe that that will change,” said a senior administration official.
One reason for not providing the long-range missiles is the “relatively few ATACMS” the United States has for its own defence needs, General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Defence One in March.
Zelensky, however, said he believes the United States isn’t sending the weapons because it doesn’t trust Kyiv.
“I think they are afraid that we might use them on the territory of Russia,” Zelensky told The Post. “But I would always tell our partners … ‘We have a priority target for which we are spending the ammunition packages we receive, and we spend it on the deoccupation of purely Ukrainian territories,’” he said.
While there is no indication that Ukraine has used Western missiles to strike into Russian territory, the same cannot be said for Kyiv’s use of armed drones.
Explosions caused by unmanned aerial vehicles have become a regular occurrence in Russia, including in Rostov, where a drone crashed into an oil refinery this month. Ukrainian officials are often coy about the incidents, hinting that they’re responsible without directly taking credit.
Two drone attacks in December on Russia’s Engels air base in Saratov, more than 590 kilometres from the Ukrainian border, showed “that we have the ability to reach many kilometres farther than they could expect,” Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, said in an interview earlier this year.
Russia this month accused Ukraine of staging a drone attack intended to kill President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. Videos circulating on social media and verified by The Post show two drones streaking toward the Kremlin at about 2.30am local time. The allegation was forcefully denied by Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky…………………..more https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/leak-reveals-zelensky-privately-plots-bold-attacks-inside-russia-20230514-p5d87l.html The Washington Post
UK’s Nuclear Waste Services ignore overwhelming local council opposition to siting plan for waste dump
Candidates opposed to the siting of a Nuclear Waste facility on the border
of Mablethorpe and Theddlethorpe not only took control of all the parish
councils in the search area but also took all of the allocated seats on the
dissstrict council, plus two seats in Sutton on Sea.
Turnout was high for a local election. In Theddlethorpe and Withern 39.6% of those eligible to
vote did so and more than seventy per cent of the voted for Travis Hesketh
(pictured) In Sutton on Sea, Where one Green and one independent anti dump
candidates overturned a Conservative majority, the turnout topped forty per
cent.
With such an overwhelming result we wrote to the leaders of both
Lincolnshire County Council and East Lyndsey District Council demanding
that they honour the people’s decision and withdraw from the so-called,
Community Partnership.
We await their decision. However, NWS has spoken to
the press and intend to ignore the result. That makes the second “Test Of
Public Support ” they have chosen to ignore. The first, a survey carried
out by Theddlethorpe Residents Association, showed 85% against with a
turnout of 56%.
Guardians of the East Coast 13th May 2023
https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/385711/88100923539195491
Philippines unprepared for nuclear-related dangers
“Companies and the pro-nuclear lobby are not being forthright on the pitfalls of small modular reactors (SMR),”
“If constructed, the Philippines will be one of the guinea pigs in a costly experiment “
BYJONATHAN L. MAYUGA, MAY 15, 2023, Business Mirror
THE Philippines is not prepared for the risks posed by nuclear energy and should instead pursue the development of renewable energy. This was emphasized by Greenpeace Campaigner Khevin Yu during an online news briefing dubbed “The Economic Implications of a Philippine Nuclear Program: What the Pro-Nuclear Camp Won’t Tell Us” held last Friday.
Greenpeace held the briefing to issue its reaction to the House Committee on Appropriations’ approval of a House bill that seeks to establish a nuclear regulatory framework.
Citing a Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) report on the feasibility of nuclear energy in the Philippines, Yu said it would take at least a hundred years for the Philippines to be ready for the construction, operation and management of nuclear waste.
He said that similarly, the Philippines is not equipped with the technology nor the capacity to ensure the safe operation of nuclear energy, arguing that it will be too risky to operate such a facility in a country that is exposed to various natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, landslides and flooding.
According to Yu, at least 14 sites are being eyed for the development of a nuclear facility in various locations, including Bataan, near the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was abandoned by the government in the 1970s.
A lot better
GOING for renewable energy like solar energy is a lot better, Yu said because once it fails, solar energy can be quickly switched off without the risk of a nuclear disaster. He added that nuclear energy requires a lifetime to construct, operate and manage and is worse than fossil fuel, which can be shut down in 25 years. He said that disposing of wastes in nuclear will be problematic, citing the case of even advanced countries like Japan.
According to Greenpeace, the proposed Philippine National Nuclear Energy Act is a gruesome bill that, if enacted, will potentially bankrupt the country.
The group believes that the most that benefit from the proposed measure are the nuclear industry and nuclear companies.
“Posing a severe drain to the country’s financial resources, the bill will make the national government, local government units, using Filipino taxpayer money, shoulder most, if not all the liabilities—costs of short-and long-term waste storage, decommissioning and nuclear accidents— associated with nuclear energy,” it says.
During the briefing, Yu said nuclear energy is a costly source of power.
“It does not fit in a world beset by a global financial crisis, as countries like ours struggle from keeping the economy afloat while dealing with climate change impacts,” he said.
Yu said the nuclear bill in Congress will waste billions of taxpayer money even while it fails to propose any viable financial solutions to address the necessary gargantuan costs for short- and long-term radioactive waste storage, decommissioning and nuclear accidents.
“Companies and the pro-nuclear lobby are not being forthright on the pitfalls of small modular reactors (SMR),” he added.
Costs much higher
YU said there is no commercial SMR currently in operation in the world. If constructed, the Philippines will be one of the guinea pigs in a costly experiment, he said.
Moreover, he said the projected costs are much higher than our country can afford, putting the burden on our government and the people.
“Companies proposing SMRs, in reality, do not have sufficient capital to fund billions needed for nuclear accidents, early decommissioning and waste storage. Meanwhile, the Philippine government’s track record of making those responsible for environmental accidents like mine and oil spills is dismal,” he said.
In conclusion, Greenpeace said the Philippines government should drop Rep. Mark O. Cojuangco’s nuclear bill, arguing that it has “faulty provisions” and “neglects to tackle the true costs of nuclear energy”—both on the financial aspects of construction and operation, as well as, short and long term waste storage, decommissioning and nuclear accidents, all of which concern the safety of Filipino people.
Yu said the government should, in fact, drop plans to develop nuclear energy in the Philippines, altogether saying “it uses technologies and resources that are not readily available in the country and indigenous renewable sources are locally available and abundant, much faster to deploy, much less costly and does not carry inherent risks.
Instead, he said the Philippine government should prioritize a just transition to renewable energy.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 