South Australian Greens Welcome Court Decision to Stop Nuclear Waste Facility in Kimba
The Greens have welcomed the decision of the Federal Court to overturn the federal Ministerial declaration to select Napandee near Kimba as the proposed site for a national nuclear waste facility.
The decision comes after the Barngarla people, the traditional owners of Kimba, challenged the proposed facility, arguing that they had failed to be properly consulted and the facility would impact sacred sites.
Quotes attributable to Tammy Franks MLC:
“It was a major concern that the Barngarla people as traditional owners had not consented to this proposed facility, contradicting longstanding SA legislation. The Greens are proud to have stood in solidarity with the Barngarla people in their pursuit of justice.
“It has been a longstanding view of SA Labor that for a nuclear radioactive dump or storage facility the traditional owners should have a right of veto. The Greens look forward to the Malinauskas Government working with traditional owners to ensure their sites and stories are protected.
Not nuclear, but wind and solar still cheapest – CSIRO
By Peter Roberts https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/not-nuclear-but-wind-and-solar-still-cheapest-csiro 18 July 23
There is a huge amount of hype around new energy sources to replace fossil fuels and none more so than the phenomenon of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR).
But the hype remains just that according to the latest GenCost 2022–23 study released today by CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator.
While SMRs are likely cheaper to build that traditional large nuclear power stations, renewable power from onshore wind turbines and solar PV are increasingly important as the cheapest sources of new energy generation capacity according to the report.
This holds true whether the costs of integration into the grid are taken into account, or not.
Each year the two bodies work with industry to give an updated cost estimate for large-scale electricity generation in Australia, and each year wind and solar come out on top
The 2022-23 report found that onshore wind and solar PV are ‘the lowest cost generation technology by a significant margin’, despite cost increases averaging 20 per cent for new-build electricity generation in Australia.
Offshore wind is higher cost but competitive with other alternative low emission generation technologies.
CSIRO Chief Energy Economist Paul Graham said: “Innovation in electricity generation technology is a global effort that’s strongly linked to climate change policy ambitions.
“Technology costs are one piece of the puzzle, providing critical input to electricity sector analysis.
“To limit emissions, our energy system must evolve and become more diverse.”
GenCost said the next lowest cost flexible technology in 2023 is gas generation with carbon capture and storage, but only if it could be financed at a rate that does not include climate policy risk.
Fossil fuels were more expensive and faced hurdles such as government legislation and net zero targets, and historically high energy costs.
GenCost said that with SMRs, ‘achieving the lower end of the nuclear SMR range (of cost estimates) requires that SMR is deployed globally in large enough capacity to bring down costs available to Australia’.
As for SMRs, none of this should not be surprising as even the International Atomic Energy Agency does not claim nuclear power is cheaper.
The agency claims only that SMRs, advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit or about one-third of typical sizes, provide cheaper power than traditional large nuclear stations.
Their advantage over traditional nuclear is linked to the nature of their design – small and modular.
According to the IAEA more than 70 commercial SMR designs are being developed around the world.
The IAEA says on its website: “Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.”
.
Traditional owners win legal challenge to stop nuclear waste facility in Kimba
Key points:
- The federal government selected Kimba as the site for future storage of nuclear waste
- That decision was opposed by the Barngarla traditional owners, who challenged it in court
- The Federal Court today ruled in their favour, setting aside the government’s decision
A Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky – Part 2
In the intelligence business, every agent is assigned tasks by his or her handlers. In the case of Agent Zelensky, I’ve identified ten obligations that define his relationship with his foreign intelligence masters. Once you’ve examined each of these, it becomes clear why Zelensky the comedian said one thing, and Zelensky the President did another. What are the true reasons behind the current situation in Ukraine today? What kind of operation has the CIA been running in Ukraine over the course of many years? You will find the answers to these and other questions in Part 2 of my investigative documentary film, “Agent Zelensky.” Click here to watch Part 1.
‘Artificial Escalation’: Imagining the future of nuclear risk
As arms race dynamics push AI progress forward, prioritizing speed over safety, it is important to remember that in races toward mutual destruction, there is no winner. There is a point at which an arms race becomes a suicide race.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Anthony Aguirre, Emilia Javorsky, Max Tegmark | July 17, 2023
Imagine it’s 2032. The US and China are still rivals. In order to give their military commanders better intel and more time to make decisions, both powers have integrated artificial intelligence (AI) throughout their nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. But instead, events take an unexpected turn and spin out of control, with catastrophic results.
This is the story told in a new short film called Artificial Escalation produced by Space Film & VFX for The Future of Life Institute. This plot may sound like science fiction (and the story is fictional), but the possibility of AI integration into weapons of mass destruction is now very real. Some experts say that the United States should build an NC3 system using AI “with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces.” The US is already envisioning integration like this in conventional command and control systems: the Joint All-Domain Command and Control has proposed connecting sensors from all military services into a single network, using AI to identify targets and recommend the “optimal weapon.” But NC3-AI integration is a terrible idea.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) explored key risks of AI integration into NC3, including: increased speed of warfare, accidental escalation, misperception of intentions and capabilities, erosion of human control, first-strike instability, the unpredictability of AI, the vulnerabilities of AI to adversary penetration, and arms race dynamics. The National Security Commission on AI cautioned that AI “will likely increase the pace and automation of warfare across the board, reducing the time and space available for de-escalatory measures.”
This new rate of warfare would leave less time for countries to signal their own capabilities and intentions or to understand their opponents’ perspectives. This could lead to unintended conflict escalation, crisis instability, and even nuclear war.
As arms race dynamics push AI progress forward, prioritizing speed over safety, it is important to remember that in races toward mutual destruction, there is no winner. There is a point at which an arms race becomes a suicide race. The reasons not to integrate AI into comprehensive command, control, and communications systems are manifold:
Adversarial AI carries unpredictable escalation risk. Even if AI-NC3 systems are carefully tested and evaluated, they may be made unpredictable by design. Two or more such systems interacting in a complex and adversarial environment can push each other to new extremes, greatly increasing the risk of accidental escalation. We have seen this before with the 2010 “flash crash” of the stock market, when adversarial trading algorithms wiped trillions of dollars off the stock exchange in under an hour. The military equivalent of that hour would be catastrophic.
No real training data. AI systems require a lot of data in their training, whether real or simulated. But training systems for nuclear conflict necessitates the generation of synthetic data with incomplete information, because the full extent of an adversary’s capabilities is unknown. This adds another element of dangerous unpredictability into the command and control mix.
Cyber vulnerabilities of networked systems. AI-integrated command, control, and communications systems would also be vulnerable to cyberattacks, hacking, and data poisoning. When all sensor data and systems are networked, failure can spread throughout the entire system. Each of these vulnerabilities must be considered across the systems of every nuclear nation, as the whole system is only as strong as its weakest link.
Epistemic uncertainty. Widespread use of AI to create misinformation is already clouding what is real and what is fake. The inability to discern truth is especially dangerous in the military context, and accurate information is particularly crucial to the stability of command and control systems. Historically, there have been channels of reliable, trustworthy communication between adversaries, even when there were also disinformation campaigns happening in the background. When we automate more and engage person-to-person less, those reliable channels dissipate and the risk of unnecessary escalation skyrockets.
Human Deference to Machines. If an algorithm makes a suggestion, people could defy it, but will they? ……………………………………………………………………………
Integrating AI into the critical functions of command, control, and communication is reckless. The world cannot afford to give up control over something as dangerous as weapons of mass destruction. As the United Nations Security Council prepares to meet tomorrow to discuss AI and nuclear risk, now is the time to set hard limits, strengthen trust and transparency, and ensure that the future remains in human hands. https://thebulletin.org/2023/07/artificial-escalation-imagining-the-future-of-nuclear-risk/
Nuclear waste on Aboriginal land ?- and the Voice to Parliament?
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
This morning, I heard Professor Ian Lowe, talking to a English journalist, about yesterday’s court decision, which supported the Barngarla people’s opposition to nuclear waste dumping on their land.
Prof Lowe eloquently summarised the importance of this legal decision:
-the Aboriginal people were not consulted when the Morrison Liberal Coalition decided to make a nuclear waste dump on their traditional land.
– this raises problems for the Australian government in selecting any land in this country for nuclear waste dumping
-this has international implications – about any country where the rulers want to impose a nuclear waste dump on indigenous land
-this has implications for the ill-advised (corrupt firm PWC was the advisor) AUKUS decision by the Albanese government to buy U.S nuclear submarines at $369billion. That decision included Australia taking responsibility for the high level radioactive trash from the nuclear submarines. Where to dump that trash?
Of course, the Australian government does have the power to impose the nuclear waste dump anyway, against indigenous wishes, even against South Australian State government wishes,
The Australian government is in the process of holding a referendum that would give the indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. Imposing nuclear waste on Aboriginal land is not a good look, is it?
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 