Proponents of nuclear power are peddling hot air
Chris Bowen, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Australia
Chris Bowen, 24 February 2024. https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/opinion-piece-proponents-nuclear-power-are-peddling-hot-air
Opponents of cleaner, cheaper renewables have used a particularly spectacular contortion of logic to claim the recent catastrophic storms in Victoria and the resulting power outages as evidence of the folly of acting on climate change and boosting renewables.
Predictably, nuclear energy advocates seized on the Victorian events and temporary power outage to re-energise their campaign for Australia to start a nuclear energy industry.
Let’s be clear upfront. Nuclear is not being pushed as a genuine alternative to renewables. It’s being used as a distraction and a delaying tactic.
It’s also quite the feat to assert that had it been nuclear rather than renewables, a coal-fired electricity generator in Victoria wouldn’t have shut itself down as protection against surges from storm-damaged transmission. It’s an even greater leap essentially to assert that a grid under the LNP would involve no distribution – given the vast majority of outages were caused by extreme damage to the distribution network – including from the half a million lightning strikes in eight hours.
Will nuclear powered electricity be transmitted by osmosis? By Bluetooth? By a vibe? Whether your energy comes from coal, nuclear, gas or renewables, if poles and wires are down, electricity won’t get where it needs to go.
The pro-nuclear argument is two-pronged. That the world has realised the perils of renewables and is experiencing a nuclear renaissance, and Australia is missing out.
And that nuclear is much cheaper than renewable energy, once upgrading and expanding the grid is factored in.
Both these arguments collapse faster than a tree in a lightning strike when exposed to the facts.
Global investment in renewable energy sources constitutes three quarters of all power generation investment.
Take just solar, for example. Last year, the world installed 440GW of renewable capacity. This is more than the world’s entire existing nuclear capacity built up through decades of investment. By early 2025, renewable energy will surpass coal as the planet’s largest source of energy, while coal, gas and nuclear will all shrink their market share.
Nuclear and coal combined, however, account for only 16 per cent of new global power investment. In 2005, electricity companies in the US pledged to build more than 30 reactors. Only four ever commenced construction. Two were abandoned due to massive cost and time delays.
The alleged boom in Small Modular Reactors is also a mirage. China and Russia are the only two countries to have installed them. The US has now abandoned its “flagship” commercial-scale pilot SMR (promised back in 2008), wearing 70 per cent cost blowouts without having started construction on a single reactor.
We know the Russian SMRs have extraordinarily low load factors and that nuclear waste from the SMR process is disproportionate to their output. The Chinese data is more opaque, but given SMRs generate about 300MW (compared to a coal-fired power station at 2000MW), we have no reason to believe there is anything approaching a serious contribution to China’s energy demand from their two units.
My shadow minister predicted that last year’s Dubai COP would be remembered as the “nuclear COP”. Not so much. Twenty three countries have pledged to triple nuclear energy by 2050, while 124 countries pledged to triple renewable energy investment within the next six years, before the nuclear dream even gets started.
Then there is cost. Contrary to myth, GenCost does include the cost of transmission and storage, and the CSIRO-AEMO GenCost conclusions about the chasm between nuclear and renewables costs could not be clearer.
But if you don’t want to accept eminent and independent practitioners at those organisations, then you can have a look at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which estimates it will cost $US15 trillion to triple nuclear capacity. Or University College London, which recently found that “new nuclear capacity is only cost effective if ambitious cost and construction times are assumed”.
And if you don’t like University College London’s research, ask the merchant bank Lazard, which shows levelised cost of nuclear to be four times higher than utilityscale solar and wind.
Then look at how many nuclear projects are falling over because of cost and time overruns. The UK’s Hinkley C nuclear plant was promised to be “cooking Christmas turkeys by 2017”. It’s yet to warm a single drumstick, with latest costings at more than $86bn. Who in Australia does the opposition energy spokesman expect will be footing those kind of bills?
Like many things in the climate debate, the push for nuclear power has taken on a singular importance in the culture wars. It’s striking that a party that once prided itself on economic rationalism could embrace a frolic so spectacularly uneconomic. This is the triumph of culture wars over climate pragmatism in the alternative government.
The LNP has been promising to reveal the details of its long nuclear fairytales soon. It can’t come soon enough.
No plan for nuclear power in Australia will survive contact with reality. The Australian people deserve more than hot air to power their homes and businesses.
“Stop dividing us”: Andrew Forrest attacks pro-nuclear politicians
Rachel Williamson, https://reneweconomy.com.au/stop-dividing-us-andrew-forrest-attacks-pro-nuclear-politicians/
Mining billionaire and green energy evangelist Dr Andrew Forrest has come out swinging against the deepening support for nuclear, and the aversion to wind and solar power within the National and Liberal parties in the name of farmers.
Forrest called on the federal government to speed up the transition away from carbon-intensive industries via three “simple” policies, and called on the government-in-waiting to stop spreading misinformation about renewables.
In the last fortnight opposition leader Peter Dutton doubled down on his calls for small modular nuclear reactors to be put in small Australian towns, saying he’d put one on the former Alcoa mine and power station site in the coastal Victorian town of Anglesea, while energy spokesman Ted O’Brien would put one in the Latrobe Valley.
Nationals leader David Littleproud also wants to stop the rollout of large scale renewables in Australia because rural areas are “saturated” with them, and wants to limit the energy transition to residential rooftop solar and arrays on commercial buildings.
Forrest pooh-poohed their understanding of the economics of major projects, saying the Coalition proposals would leave Australia “destitute” because of the enormously cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar.
“I ask you who claim to represent the bush now to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever,” Forrest said during a talk at the National Press Club.
” We can’t, so please stop betraying the bush. If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy, and that nuclear energy will be a fairy godmother, we will be worse off again.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic plucked out of thin air, bulldust nuclear policies, [from] politicians masquerading as leaders, helps no one. Politicians who do whatever they can to discourage voters are just politicians, they are not political leaders.”
Forrest cited in particular the misinformation that Australian farmers will have to give up huge tracts of land to enable the green energy transition (a meme advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs and repeated by the likes or rival iron ore billionaire Gina Rinehart and the Coalition.
Forrest also announced a fund to help with wind and solar farm decommissioning and calling on the federal government to better regulate renewables developers to ensure they set aside money for that purpose.
It’s easy with three “simple” policies
Forrest wants to see a test for all major projects that explicitly considers climate impacts, for the country to lean into least cost, firmed renewables, and for the carbon levy proposed by Rod Sims and Ross Garnaut on fossil fuel imports and exports.
“We can circuit break the cost of living crisis, turn around unemployment and play our full part in decarbonizing at least to 6 per cent of global emissions through new green export industries,” he said.
“Australia can generate not one but many of its own Australian Aramcos with the right policy settings. We can achieve all these with three simple policies.
An impact test would create a climate trigger for every project requiring government approval, making carbon emissions and global warming automatically part of any environmental assessment.
US president Biden has already taken some action in this vein by pausing LNG export projects pending an assessment of the impacts on climate change.
Forrest claimed that it is the US’ “forward thinking climate strategy” and not the enormous funding on offer under the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is why Fortescue is building a liquid green hydrogen project in Phoenix, Arizona.
The second policy recommendation, leaning into renewables, repeats calls to roll out renewables faster in order to bring down the cost of electricity for Australians, while the third demanded an end to the “free ride” of fossil fuel companies via a carbon levy.
“The multi decadal polluting companies have exploited vicious lobbying for approvals so they can crowd out green energy, so they can prevent Australians from having the choice between cheaper green energy, which would destroy their livelihoods,” Forrest said.
“Let’s be clear for the sake of the visionless, a carbon solutions levy is not a carbon tax… it would only be applied to the 100-odd fossil fuel extraction sites in Australia and to importers, who are stopping us making our own energy. The beauty of this levy is that it does not penalise everyday Australians.
“It only penalises that the perpetrators of this crisis, the fossil fuel industry… Existing gas projects will continue to operate, they’ll just have to pay the levy. They’ll just have to pay their way. That’ll be new.”
He even called out taxpayer support for miners to use imported diesel, naming his own company Fortescue as one beneficiary.
“Their lobby groups quickly hide behind the Australian farm to defend the diesel fuel rebate. But they know that the vast proportion of the money goes to big mining and fossil fuel companies, not Australia’s farmers or fishermen.
” The ridiculousness of the rich crying out for more fossil fuel subsidies while denying climate change will surely go down as one of the most perversely selfish behaviours in Australian history.”
Fossil fuel subsidies increased to a record-breaking $57.1 billion in 2023, up from the $55.3 billion forecast in the 2022 budget, according to a report by The Australia Institute last year.
The Fuel Tax Act which subsidises the consumption of diesel, has cost over $95 billion in tax foregone to the Australian economy, via the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS), since it was legislated in 2006.
The Victorian towns where Peter Dutton is considering going nuclear
Josh Gordon and Benjamin Preiss, February 25, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-victorian-towns-where-peter-dutton-is-considering-going-nuclear-20240223-p5f7a3.html
The Coalition is leaving the door open to building nuclear reactors in the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea using land from retired coal-fired power stations as a solution to Victoria’s energy troubles.
But locals warn there would be significant opposition to nuclear reactors being built in their towns, even if the huge legal hurdles to constructing and running them could be overcome.
With Victoria’s energy security under scrutiny after a wild storm earlier this month left hundreds of thousands of homes without power and triggered the shutdown of the state’s largest coal-fired generator, the federal opposition has confirmed it is now in the “advanced stages” of developing an energy policy. Nuclear is set to be a key part of the mix.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told The Age potential locations remained a “work-in-progress”, but he had been advised that “communities with experience hosting coal plants could be ideal potential hosts for zero-emissions nuclear plants”.
That leaves Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired power plants, plus the now decommissioned site of the Hazelwood mine and power station, as strongly preferred locations – with existing connections to the energy grid, and a ready-made workforce preparing for the end of coal-fired generation over the next 15 years.
“We have been very transparent about the fact we are considering zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of Australia’s future energy mix, and we will remain open about the details of our policy when it is announced,” O’Brien said.
The state opposition remains more cautious about the prospect of nuclear in the Latrobe Valley, but it too is not ruling out the idea. Asked about using retired coal-fired power stations as sites for nuclear energy, Opposition Leader John Pesutto said a commonsense approach was needed.
“But for any new industry to succeed it would first need detailed inquiries and thorough examination,” Pesutto told The Age. “It would also require bipartisan support, as this is crucial for investment certainty and to eliminate sovereign risk.”
Other sites in Victoria have also been flagged. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently hinted at the possibility of a small modular reactor on the Surf Coast at Anglesea, on the site of Alcoa’s former mine and power station.
“It’s zero emissions, you can put it into an existing brownfield site, so when the coal-fired generation comes to an end, you can put the nuclear modular reactors into that facility,” Dutton said in September.
The argument for nuclear is that plugging into existing infrastructure would be significantly cheaper and would reduce the need for thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines needed to connect wind and solar energy dotted across the grid.
O’Brien has previously pointed to a September 2022 study for the US Department of Energy that found using the infrastructure of an existing coal plant could reduce a nuclear plant’s capital costs by up to 35 per cent. He suggested Australia should look to the US state of Wyoming, which is planning to replace its coal-fired generators with nuclear by about 2030.
But any move towards nuclear power in Victoria would likely encounter strong resistance from communities worried about safety, waste disposal and the cost.
Voices of the Valley president Wendy Farmer said nuclear power would face major opposition from communities worried about the risks.Farmer said residents in the Latrobe Valley had already suffered the consequences of the Hazelwood mine fire in 2014, which burned for 45 days and caused health concerns for those living amid the smoke.
“I would be surprised if there would be any enthusiasm for a reactor,” she said.
Deputy Mayor Mike Bodsworth, who represents the Anglesea ward, said residents were excited by the potential for renewable power generation at the former Alcoa site.
“But nobody I know has ever mentioned nuclear,” he said. “Knowing the general preferences of the local population, I doubt it would be supported.”
The Coalition has been talking up the potential to use small-scale modular reactors to generate power, and argue this, along with gas, will be a key part of Australia’s future energy mix to provide so-called base-load generation along with variable renewables.
In May last year, US company Westinghouse released plans for a small modular reactor. Reuters reported Westinghouse planned to begin building the reactor by 2030.
But many experts say this approach would be prohibitively expensive in Australia, particularly if forced to compete against lower-cost renewable wind and solar generators now being installed at a rapid rate across the country.
The CSIRO’s best guess is that in 2030 the capital cost of a small modular reactor will be $15,844 per kilowatt of electricity generated, compared to $1078 for solar and $1989 for wind.
That suggests replacing Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired plants, which combined to produce up to 4730 megawatts of electricity, with nuclear would involve a capital cost of about $74.9 billion, before even considering the ongoing running, maintenance and waste disposal costs.
The Coalition would also need to get the numbers in state parliament to repeal existing state and federal laws, including Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983, which bans the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Victoria.
Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said nuclear energy was “toxic, risky, will take years to develop and [is] the most expensive form of energy there is”.
“Not only are the sites of our former coal plants privately owned, but there is currently no regulatory framework for approving a nuclear power plant in Australia, there are no nuclear waste storage sites in Australia, and no modular nuclear reactors have made it past the trial phase,” she said.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen said claims of a boom in small modular reactors was a myth, and suggested Dutton should explain to the people around Gippsland why they should accommodate multiple reactors “for no good reason”.
“Anyone who has done their homework knows nuclear is not viable,” Bowen said. “The alleged boom in small modular reactors is a furphy. It’s striking that a party that once prided itself on economic rationalism could embrace a frolic so spectacularly uneconomic.”
In the US, a project run by NuScale Power to build the first commercial small modular reactor was scrapped last year because of soaring costs, leaving taxpayers facing a significant bill. Other projects promising commercially competitive nuclear energy have similarly failed to materialise.
Buried Nuclear Waste From the Cold War Could Resurface as Ice Sheets Melt
Decades after the U.S. buried nuclear waste abroad, climate change could unearth it.
By Anita Hofschneider, Grist, https://gizmodo.com/buried-nuclear-waste-from-the-cold-war-could-resurface-1851286777
Ariana Tibon was in college at the University of Hawaiʻi in 2017 when she saw the photo online: a black-and-white picture of a man holding a baby. The caption said: “Nelson Anjain getting his baby monitored on March 2, 1954, by an AEC RadSafe team member on Rongelap two days after ʻBravo.ʻ”
Tibon had never seen the man before. But she recognized the name as her great-grandfatherʻs. At the time, he was living on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands when the U.S. conducted Castle Bravo, the largest of 67 nuclear weapon tests there during the Cold War. The tests displaced and sickened Indigenous people, poisoned fish, upended traditional food practices, and wrought cancers and other negative health repercussions that continue to reverberate today.
A federal report by the Government Accountability Office published last month examines what’s left of that nuclear contamination, not only in the Pacific but also in Greenland and Spain. The authors conclude that climate change could disturb nuclear waste left in Greenland and the Marshall Islands. “Rising sea levels could spread contamination in RMI, and conflicting risk assessments cause residents to distrust radiological information from the U.S. Department of Energy,” the report says.
In Greenland, chemical pollution and radioactive liquid are frozen in ice sheets, left over from a nuclear power plant on a U.S. military research base where scientists studied the potential to install nuclear missiles. The report didn’t specify how or where nuclear contamination could migrate in the Pacific or Greenland, or what if any health risks that might pose to people living nearby. However, the authors did note that in Greenland, frozen waste could be exposed by 2100.
“The possibility to influence the environment is there, which could further affect the food chain and further affect the people living in the area as well,” said Hjalmar Dahl, president of Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland. The country is about 90 percent Inuit. “I think it is important that the Greenland and U.S. governments have to communicate on this worrying issue and prepare what to do about it.”
The authors of the GAO study wrote that Greenland and Denmark haven’t proposed any cleanup plans, but also cited studies that say much of the nuclear waste has already decayed and will be diluted by melting ice. However, those studies do note that chemical waste such as polychlorinated biphenyls, man-made chemicals better known as PCBs that are carcinogenic, “may be the most consequential waste at Camp Century.”
The report summarizes disagreements between Marshall Islands officials and the U.S. Department of Energy regarding the risks posed by U.S. nuclear waste. The GAO recommends that the agency adopt a communications strategy for conveying information about the potential for pollution to the Marshallese people.
Nathan Anderson, a director at the Government Accountability Office, said that the United States’ responsibilities in the Marshall Islands “are defined by specific federal statutes and international agreements.” He noted that the government of the Marshall Islands previously agreed to settle claims related to damages from U.S. nuclear testing.
“It is the long-standing position of the U.S. government that, pursuant to that agreement, the Republic of the Marshall Islands bears full responsibility for its lands, including those used for the nuclear testing program.”
To Tibon, who is back home in the Marshall Islands and is currently chair of the National Nuclear Commission, the fact that the report’s only recommendation is a new communications strategy is mystifying. She’s not sure how that would help the Marshallese people.
“What we need now is action and implementation on environmental remediation. We don’t need a communication strategy,” she said. “If they know that it’s contaminated, why wasn’t the recommendation for next steps on environmental remediation, or what’s possible to return these lands to safe and habitable conditions for these communities?”
The Biden administration recently agreed to fund a new museum to commemorate those affected by nuclear testing as well as climate change initiatives in the Marshall Islands, but the initiatives have repeatedly failed to garner support from Congress, even though they’re part of an ongoing treaty with the Marshall Islands and a broader national security effort to shore up goodwill in the Pacific to counter China.
Fatal Flaws Undermine America’s Defense Industrial Base
Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.
In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so.
Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.
If private industry and its prioritization of profits is the central problem inhibiting the DIB from fulfilling its purpose, the obvious solution is nationalizing the DIB by replacing private industry with state-owned enterprises. This allows the government to prioritize purpose over profits. Yet in the United States and across Europe, the so-called “military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
US defense industrial strategy built on a flawed premise
Beyond private industry’s hold on the US DIB, the very premise the NDIS is built on is fundamentally flawed, deeply rooted in private industry’s profit-driven prioritization.
The report claims:
The purpose of this National Defense Industrial Strategy is to drive development of an industrial ecosystem that provides a sustained competitive advantage to the United States over its adversaries.
The notion of the United States perpetually expanding its wealth and power across the globe, unrivaled by its so-called “adversaries” is unrealistic.
China alone has a population 4-5 times greater than the US. China’s population is, in fact, larger than that of the G7 combined. China has a larger industrial base, economy, and education system than the US. China’s education system not only produces millions more graduates each year in essential fields like science, technology, and engineering than the US, the proportion of such graduates is higher in China than in the US.
China alone possesses the means to maintain a competitive advantage over the United States now and well into the foreseeable future. The US, attempting to draw up a strategy to maintain an advantage over China (not to mention over the rest of the world) regardless of these realities, borders on delusion.
Yet for 60 pages, US policymakers attempt to lay out a strategy to do just that.
Not just China, but also Russia
While China is repeatedly mentioned as America’s “pacing challenge,” the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the most acute example of a shifting balance of global power.
Despite a combined population, GDP, and military budget many times greater than Russia’s, the collective West is incapable of matching Russian production of even relatively simple munitions like artillery shells, let alone more complex systems like tanks, aircraft, and precision-guided missiles.
While the US and its allies appear to have every conceivable advantage over Russia on paper, the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society.
In Russia, the defense industry exists to serve national security. While one might believe this goes without saying, across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
To best serve national security, the defense industry is required to maintain substantial surge capacity – meaning additional, unused factory space, machines, and labor on standby if and when large surges in production are required in relatively short periods of time. Across the West, in order to maximize profits, surge capacity has been ruthlessly slashed, deemed economically inefficient. Only rare exceptions exist, such as US 155 mm artillery shell production.
While the West’s defense industry remains the most profitable on Earth, its ability to actually churn out arms and ammunition in the quantities and quality required for large-scale conflict is clearly compromised by its maximization of profits.
The result is evident today as the West struggles to expand production of arms and ammunition for its Ukrainian proxies.
The NDIS report would note:
Prior to the invasion, weapon procurements for some of the in-demand systems were driven by annual training requirements and ongoing combat operations. This modest demand, along with recent market dynamics, drove companies to divest excess capacity due to cost. This meant that any increased production requirements would require an increase in workforce hours in existing facilities—commonly referred to as “surge” capacity. These, in turn, were limited further by similar down-stream considerations of workforce, facility, and supply chain limitations.
Costs are most certainly a consideration across any defense industry, but costs cannot be the primary consideration.
A central element of Russia’s defense industry is Rostec, a massive state-owned enterprise under which hundreds of companies related to national industrial needs including defense are organized. Rostec is profitable. However, the industrial concerns organized under Rostec serve purposes related to Russia’s national interests first and foremost, be it national health, infrastructure or security.
Because Russia’s defense industry is purpose-driven, it produced military equipment because it was necessary, not because it was profitable. As a result, Russia possessed huge stockpiles of ammunition and equipment ahead of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022. In addition to this, Russia maintained large amounts of surge capacity enabling production rates of everything from artillery shells to armored vehicles to expand quickly over the past 2 years.
Only relatively recently have Western analysts acknowledged this.
Continue reading
“military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society………………………………across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
By Brian Berletic, Orinoco Tribune. February 24, 2024 https://popularresistance.org/fatal-flaws-undermine-americas-defense-industrial-base/
The first-ever US Department of Defense National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) confirms what many analysts have concluded in regard to the unsustainable nature of Washington’s global-spanning foreign policy objectives and its defense industrial base’s (DIB) inability to achieve them.
The report lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US DIB including a lack of surge capacity, inadequate workforce, off-shore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.
In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.
For example, the report attempts to explain why many companies across the US DIB lack advanced manufacturing capabilities, claiming:
Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.
In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so.
Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.
If private industry and its prioritization of profits is the central problem inhibiting the DIB from fulfilling its purpose, the obvious solution is nationalizing the DIB by replacing private industry with state-owned enterprises. This allows the government to prioritize purpose over profits. Yet in the United States and across Europe, the so-called “military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
US defense industrial strategy built on a flawed premise
Beyond private industry’s hold on the US DIB, the very premise the NDIS is built on is fundamentally flawed, deeply rooted in private industry’s profit-driven prioritization.
The report claims:
The purpose of this National Defense Industrial Strategy is to drive development of an industrial ecosystem that provides a sustained competitive advantage to the United States over its adversaries.
The notion of the United States perpetually expanding its wealth and power across the globe, unrivaled by its so-called “adversaries” is unrealistic.
China alone has a population 4-5 times greater than the US. China’s population is, in fact, larger than that of the G7 combined. China has a larger industrial base, economy, and education system than the US. China’s education system not only produces millions more graduates each year in essential fields like science, technology, and engineering than the US, the proportion of such graduates is higher in China than in the US.
China alone possesses the means to maintain a competitive advantage over the United States now and well into the foreseeable future. The US, attempting to draw up a strategy to maintain an advantage over China (not to mention over the rest of the world) regardless of these realities, borders on delusion.
Yet for 60 pages, US policymakers attempt to lay out a strategy to do just that.
Not just China, but also Russia
While China is repeatedly mentioned as America’s “pacing challenge,” the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the most acute example of a shifting balance of global power.
Despite a combined population, GDP, and military budget many times greater than Russia’s, the collective West is incapable of matching Russian production of even relatively simple munitions like artillery shells, let alone more complex systems like tanks, aircraft, and precision-guided missiles.
While the US and its allies appear to have every conceivable advantage over Russia on paper, the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society.
In Russia, the defense industry exists to serve national security. While one might believe this goes without saying, across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
To best serve national security, the defense industry is required to maintain substantial surge capacity – meaning additional, unused factory space, machines, and labor on standby if and when large surges in production are required in relatively short periods of time. Across the West, in order to maximize profits, surge capacity has been ruthlessly slashed, deemed economically inefficient. Only rare exceptions exist, such as US 155 mm artillery shell production.
While the West’s defense industry remains the most profitable on Earth, its ability to actually churn out arms and ammunition in the quantities and quality required for large-scale conflict is clearly compromised by its maximization of profits.
The result is evident today as the West struggles to expand production of arms and ammunition for its Ukrainian proxies.
The NDIS report would note:
Prior to the invasion, weapon procurements for some of the in-demand systems were driven by annual training requirements and ongoing combat operations. This modest demand, along with recent market dynamics, drove companies to divest excess capacity due to cost. This meant that any increased production requirements would require an increase in workforce hours in existing facilities—commonly referred to as “surge” capacity. These, in turn, were limited further by similar down-stream considerations of workforce, facility, and supply chain limitations.
Costs are most certainly a consideration across any defense industry, but costs cannot be the primary consideration.
A central element of Russia’s defense industry is Rostec, a massive state-owned enterprise under which hundreds of companies related to national industrial needs including defense are organized. Rostec is profitable. However, the industrial concerns organized under Rostec serve purposes related to Russia’s national interests first and foremost, be it national health, infrastructure or security.
Because Russia’s defense industry is purpose-driven, it produced military equipment because it was necessary, not because it was profitable. As a result, Russia possessed huge stockpiles of ammunition and equipment ahead of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022. In addition to this, Russia maintained large amounts of surge capacity enabling production rates of everything from artillery shells to armored vehicles to expand quickly over the past 2 years.
Only relatively recently have Western analysts acknowledged this.
Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 