TODAY. Japan – the return of the “Nuclear Village”?
A first in Japan – The municipal assembly of Genkai in southwestern Japan will request a survey to see if their area is suitable for an underground disposal site for highly radioactive waste. When the Mayor approves this survey, the Saga Prefecture town, will receive up to 2 billion yen ($12.9 million) in state subsidies for allowing the survey.
Local business associations had submitted separate requests for the survey to the assembly, hoping the subsidies and survey activity will prop up the local economy. The associations called on the town, as already a host of a nuclear power plant, to proactively cooperate with the central government.
That would be just the start. The nuclear lobby everywhere is well experienced in arranging “community benefits”. And in nowhere better than Japan.
It starts with the catch-cry of “Jobs Jobs” – first in the construction industry, then in the operations of the nuclear facility, local contractors, and then onward – to the promise of enlivening the local economy. But this wonderful goal is also to be achieved by all sorts of grants and subsidies – “incentives for acceptance” -in Japan Japan: “siting promotion subsidy” – community funds for local development.
For Japan, this could be back to the bad old days.
in the late 1990s, Iida Tetsunari3 coined the term ‘nuclear village’ to describe the ‘syndicate’ of actors pushing Japan’s nuclear power program – institutional and individual pro-nuclear advocates in the utilities, the nuclear industry, the bureaucracy, the Diet (Japan’s parliament), business federations, the media, and academia.
The influence of the nuclear industry over government and the judiciary was powerful and involved ‘regulatory capture’ – industry influence over safety regulation. In safety-related class-action lawsuits, the courts tended to decide in line with government interests to further develop Japan’s nuclear power program
Beyond just “normalisation” of areas hosting nuclear facilities, the “nuclear village” became a celebration of the wonderful, positive role of the nuclear industry in Japanese life, lauded in politics, business, and. education.
That worked out well for Japan, (and for the USA) – in Japan’s great industrial leap forward, and in overcoming and atoning for that old nuclear disaster – the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s success became a pointer towards other nuclear villages.
But then came the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, – and it all ground nearly to a halt. Public opposition to nuclear power has held the industry back over the years since.
But the small global phalanx of nuclear promoters continues to work assiduously to control public opinion. It preys on people’s fear of global heating, and on fears of economic downturn, and promotes nuclear facilities as ‘the answer”. It looks as if that message might now be being heard by at least one municipality in Japan.
Could this be the start of Japan’s nuclear village all over again?
Dutton’s atomic bet threatens Coalition chain reaction over climate
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project. One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Rather than keep the heat on Labor’s handling of cost-of-living pain as inflation stays high, the opposition leader’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/dutton-s-atomic-bet-threatens-coalition-chain-reaction-over-climate-20240425-p5fml7 Jacob Greber Senior correspondent, Apr 25, 2024
A golden rule in politics, attributed to Napoleon, is that you should never interrupt your enemy when they’re struggling or making mistakes.
Peter Dutton’s push to engineer an ambitious nuclear power policy that keeps the Coalition from fracturing over climate policy is as fine an example as you could hope to find of premature politicus interruptus.
Rather than keeping the heat on Labor’s handling of the economy and ongoing cost-of-living pain – see for instance this week’s diabolical inflation data that has all but killed off any interest rate relief this year – Dutton’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
It will shunt the Coalition into a realm in which it has to elaborate on its plans for emissions targets; clarify whether it has one for 2035, and come clean on whether it will crab walk away from the Paris Agreement altogether.
Pivoting to nuclear means the Coalition will very likely miss the nation’s current 2030 target (of cutting emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels). Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud both see nuclear as a way to slow or halt the rollout of renewables and new electricity transmission. The political contrast for voters will be that Labor is already executing a plan to reach that goal.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
It is not widely understood – as has been explained here before – that the 2030 target is an international promise that cannot be watered down. Setting sail on a policy that falls short, intentionally, is only possible by withdrawing from Paris.
Dutton has not made clear where he stands on these questions, which are at the heart of the Coalition’s current deliberations. There is no internal consensus, either among Liberals or with the Nationals.
These are not waters that Dutton or Littleproud want to drift in for too long. For moderate Liberals – including those hoping to regain the seats they lost in 2022’s climate election – it should be ringing alarm bells.
Initially, Dutton’s go-big, go-nuclear policy venture was slated to be unveiled ahead of the budget, triggering internal consternation among those who felt they had not been directly consulted, particularly across the National Party which has not yet signed onto the idea of large-scale nuclear power generation.
And if they do, the Nationals will want Dutton to deliver the same mega-buck regional roads, dam and rail spending splurge that Barnaby Joyce secured in exchange for backing Scott Morrison over net zero by 2050 in the lead-up to the 2021 Glasgow Climate Conference.
Until now, Littleproud has kept the embers glowing by supporting small-scale nuclear reactors, so-called SMRs, which conjure benign images of unobtrusive remotely located generators no larger than a truck.
Both leaders mirrored the Coalition’s standing position, including under Morrison, of seeking to undo John Howard’s 25-year-old ban on nuclear. They stuck to a simple approach – one that most voters would have no issue with – of asking why the nation can’t have an adult “conversation” about the pros and cons of nuclear power?
This stance had the political benefit of sounding eminently sensible while being bereft of detail or real-world consequence. Such as where these things might be built. And at what cost.
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project.
One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
Old coal stations repurposed, in other words.
Yet after weeks of internal wrangling, the timeline for that announcement has blown out to some time after the May 14 budget. It may yet be buried entirely, say some observers, which would be hugely embarrassing for Dutton given how far he has already ventured.
The delay is also instructive of ongoing division over climate policy within the Coalition that has not been resolved since Morrison’s defeat two years ago by Labor and the teal independents who plundered the Liberal party’s inner-city crown jewels.
Significantly, many inside the Coalition fear the opposition leader’s nuclear push will become a self-inflicted political wedge.
Like John Hewson’s ill-fated 1993 “Fightback!” GST promise, or Bill Shorten’s bold policy platform in 2019, Dutton is seen to be at risk of “painting a big target on our backs”.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
Queensland Liberal National Party leader David Crisafulli’s repeated rejection of Dutton’s planned “nuclear renaissance” indicates he thinks it’s political suicide.
Every regional and marginal battleground seat can expect to be flooded with warnings about the dangers of nuclear energy, the risks of transporting uranium, and fights over where to store spent fuel.
Younger voters like Millennials are sensibly less allergic to the idea of nuclear energy than Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, especially those who popped their political cherries during the nuclear disarmament movements of the Cold War.
But once the question becomes about where to locate these things – when you ask the locals – support tends to slide.
And then there are the attendant details. How will a nuclear power program that will not become a reality for at least 15 to 20 years help coal power workers being displaced by plant closures meanwhile?
Nuclear baseload energy offers the prospect of many good things, including a manufacturing renaissance. But making things in the 2030s will be nothing like making things in the 1950s. Current trends suggest robots will do most of the work, not humans.
Dutton’s determination to press ahead on nuclear – there are no signs at this point of a backdown, but keep your eyes open – could turn out to be a massive stroke of political genius, or fatal hubris.
The opposition leader had every right to feel confident after last year’s Voice to parliament referendum outcome. Polls such as this week’s Resolve Political Monitor show voters are drifting back to the Liberals.
But that shift is happening before Dutton and the Liberal party have really defined themselves, or offered details of what a future Coalition government will look like.
The nuclear policy – and its consequences for the Coalition’s climate and energy stance – will fill that void as quickly as an atomic chain reaction.
Instead of a 2025 election strategy that rests on telling voters how bad Labor is while dispensing pork barrel promises to swing electorates, the Coalition will be in the business of having to explain a hugely expensive, risky and complicated policy.
That’s one hell of a punt.
Nuclear-waste dams threaten Central Asia heartland
Dams holding large amounts of nuclear waste can be found in Kyrgyzstan’s
scenic hills. However, following a 2017 landslide they have become
unstable, threatening a possible Chernobyl-scale nuclear disaster if they
collapse.
Reuters 24th April 2024
Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it
Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two.
The Bulletin, By Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill | April 26, 2024
On April 19, Israel carried out a strike deep inside Iranian territory, near the city of Isfahan. The attack was apparently in retaliation for a major Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel a few days earlier. This exchange between the two countries—which have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories—has raised fears of a potentially serious military escalation in the region.
Israel’s strike was carried out against an Iranian military site located in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. Although the attack did not target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, earlier reports suggested that Israel was considering such attacks. The Iranian leadership has, in turn, threatened to reconsider its nuclear policy and to advance its program should nuclear sites be attacked.
These events highlight the threat from regional escalation dynamics posed by Iran’s near-threshold nuclear capability, which grants Iran the perception of a certain degree of deterrence—at least against direct US retaliation—while also serving as an understandably tempting target for Israeli attack. As tensions between Israel and Iran have moved away from their traditional proxy nature and manifested as direct strikes against each other’s territories, the urgency of finding a timely and non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has increased.
A tempting target. While the current assessment is that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic maintains a very advanced nuclear program, allowing it to develop a nuclear weapons capability relatively rapidly, should it decide to do so. Iran’s “near-threshold” capability did not deter Israel from undertaking its recent attack. But Iran’s nuclear program is a tempting target for an attack that could have potentially destabilizing ramification: The program is advanced enough to pose a credible risk of rapid weaponization and at a stage when it could still be significantly degraded, albeit at an extremely high cost.
Iran views its nuclear program as a deterrent against direct US strikes on or invasion of its territory, acting as an insurance policy of sorts against invasion following erroneous Western accusations over its nuclear program, ala Iraq in 2003. That’s to say, during an attempted invasion, Iran could quickly produce nuclear weapons. This capability allows Iran’s leadership to engage in destabilizing activities in the region with a (perceived) limited likelihood of retaliation against its own territory. Concerns over escalation and a potential Iranian push toward weaponization of its nuclear program may have been one of multiple considerations that contributed to the US refusal to take part in Israeli retaliatory action following Iran’s April 13 strikes on Israel.
Israel sees the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat and has long sought its elimination. For this reason, reports that Israel might have been preparing to target Iranian nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran’s strikes against its territory came as little surprise. Israel’s attack on military installations near Iranian nuclear facilities—and against an air defense system that Iran has deployed to protect its nuclear sites—appears to have been calibrated precisely to make the point that Israel has the capability to directly attack heavily-protected nuclear sites deep inside Iran. Some commentators have speculated that subsequent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites may still be desirable or necessary.
In this context, Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two. Moreover, Israel may also conclude that its own undeclared nuclear capability has failed to act as a deterrent against two major assaults on its territory. The attacks by Hamas on October 7 and Iran on April 13 probably added to Israel’s sense of strategic vulnerability, although that perception may have been partly alleviated by the largely successful defense against Iran’s attempted drone and missile strikes.
Israel has historically targeted Iran’s nuclear program through relatively limited sabotage in the form of cyber-attacks, assassinations of scientists, and bombs placed at Iranian nuclear facilities. This strategy has allowed Israel to repeatedly roll the clock back on Iran’s nuclear progress while maintaining some level of credible deniability and avoiding further military escalation, therefore largely remaining within the “rules” established by Israel and Iran in conducting their shadow war. Now, with both countries openly striking each other’s territory, Israel may see this as an opportunity—or feel compelled—to target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly.
A range of bad options. The possibility of Iranian weaponization and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to a serious escalation spiral and, potentially, a wider military conflict in the region……………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/why-iran-may-accelerate-its-nuclear-program-and-israel-may-be-tempted-to-attack-it/
Thirty-eight years on, lessons from Chernobyl
DAVE SWEENEY, Australian Conservation Foundation, 26 April 24 https://www.acf.org.au/38-years-on-lessons-from-chernobyl
—
On 26 April 1986, an exercise at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine went badly wrong.
Operators lost control of the reactor unit and the cooling systems failed.
The rapid rise in pressure and heat caused a fire and an explosion that blew apart the reactor’s containment shield.
Uncontrolled radiation spewed from the plant and was carried in the smoke of the dark night sky over a swathe of eastern and western Europe, and far beyond.
Firefighters and emergency service responders were the first to fall.
They were followed by numerous ‘liquidators’ – army conscripts with scant training or safety gear – who were sent in to contain the contamination.
Tens of thousands of community members were relocated – some forcibly – from areas near the stricken reactor.
But greater distance did not neatly translate into lesser danger. The radiation plume was erratic and unpredictable, but always damaging.
Chernobyl starkly demonstrated that radiation does not respect political borders or need a passport to travel.
The last leader of the then Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, reflected that Chernobyl “was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later” and that the disaster “showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes. One could now imagine much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded.”
Thirty-eight years later, adverse health, economic and environmental impacts persist. The Chernobyl complex remains a radioactive running sore, complicated by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
There has also been active fighting at Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear plant and a disturbingly frequent battleground between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
Earlier this month the director-general of the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency spoke of a “major escalation of the nuclear safety and security dangers facing the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant” and a significant increase in “the risk of a major nuclear accident.”
Whether by accident in 1986 or artillery in 2024, there is no question nuclear power is the world’s most easily weaponised energy system. Reactors have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets.
On a good day nuclear power means high level radioactive waste. On a bad day Chernobyl. And the very bad day of nuclear weapons is the stuff of nightmares.
On the anniversary of Chernobyl and against a backdrop of deep global uncertainty and conflict, we need to heed the lessons of history and build a safer future.
1.This month.
14 May Industrial Decarbonisation Summit
Sydney Get involved at eec.org.au/summit-registration
15- 16 May Sydney – EEC National Conference Efficiency Electrification Decarbonisation more https://eec.my.canva.site/eecnc24
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 