Nuclear Concerns – Hiroshima, Maralinga and Dutton’s Australia
By Michele Madigan, Australian Idependent Media, 28 Sept 24
As always, on August 6th we commemorated the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and later Nagasaki, when many lives were immediately obliterated and the lives of so many more, the Hibakusha were set on a terrifying trajectory of post bomb living.
This year’s commemoration brought back to my mind, one, I think, of the most privileged moments of my life. In 2018 in association with ICAN (International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons) Australia, the Peace Boat – a Japan-based international NGO which promotes peace, human rights, and sustainability – docked at Adelaide’s Outer Harbour. Unsurprisingly the onshore meeting place at nearby Port Adelaide which ICAN had arranged for other interested people to gather, was packed. Circle conversations were a key part of the gathering and thus it was where I met my first Hibakusha.
I was honoured to be in a particular circle with Yalata/Maralinga Anangu including Mrs and the now late Mr Peters and the former Yalata Chairperson, the now late Ms M. Smart (OAM) Karina Lester was there as both nuclear survivor, Yami Lester’s daughter and Yankunytjatjara/Pitjantjatjara interpreter. The Hibakusha was a survivor from the bomb the Americans dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th 1945. Next to him sat the man who was a 2011 Fukushima survivor; then the Japanese interpreter. Then the three, perhaps middle-aged elegant Japanese women, intensely interested though presumably too young to have been direct witnesses.
Everything about being part of that circle was a sacred moment, including being in the presence of Mr Taneka Terumi who since childhood had suffered so much as one of the 100,000 Nagasaki Hibakusha. But the part that has stayed with me the most has been the image of seeing each of the Japanese lean forward in such astounded interest on hearing they were in the presence of people from Australia who were first and second generation nuclear survivors. And from a series of atomic bombs dropped on their country. Over a number of years. And by an ally.
The British nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s were firstly at Emu Fields and later, further south, on what has come to be known as the Maralinga Lands. Unsurprisingly, since this time many Aboriginal people in South Australia, especially from the western half of our vast state, have either suffered themselves, or have connections to those who have suffered the intergenerational effects of the fallout. Thus many continue to have the utmost suspicion of all things nuclear. Certainly this knowledge was a key trigger for the Barngarla Peoples – whose first anniversary victory over the latest proposed federal nuclear dump at Kimba we recently commemorated on August 10th.
They, like many other Australians, know that there is no safe level of ionising radiation; or to be more precise, there is no level of exposure below which there is no risk of inducing cancers.
In contrast, it’s abundantly clear in these past months, courtesy certainly of the Murdoch press, the present Opposition Leader has a fascination with things nuclear. This is despite the truth of the oft cited shorthand anti-nuclear power mantra: unnecessary, unsafe, untimely, and (eyewateringly) expensive.
On September 25th the Sydney Morning Herald, however, via reporter Nick Toscante published the warning from ‘Energy giant AGL’ to Peter Dutton on his nuclear plan:
“Power giant AGL says ‘Australia has reached a critical juncture in the renewable energy transition and has no time to waste on the Coalition’s controversial pitch to build nuclear generators’.“
Time is indeed a crucial factor and to explain this and the other crucial factors I acknowledge various resources, including Friends of the Earth’s Don’t Nuke The Climate website.
TOO SLOW: Despite the Coalition’s extremely optimistic hopes to the contrary, as well as AGL, the CSIRO and others say a nuclear power plant of any size would not be operational in Australia until well after 2040. Too Late! for our Pacific neighbours (and indeed our own Torres Strait Islanders). To quote the Hindustan Times 30/8, ‘the future is now lapping at their shores.’ For the rest of Australia, with August 31, 2024 the hottest winter day on record, waiting another 16 years is certain invitation for increasingly more fires, floods, droughts and general catastrophic disasters – of the first week of spring 2024.
UNNECESSARY: Continuous electricity generation is also known as baseload power.
The oft repeated mantra “When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow…” pointing to renewables’ perceived lack of baseload power was used by previous Australian governments and other proponents to cite the perceived unreliability of renewables and hence the absolute necessity of maintaining the coal industry here – at least to fill in the gap. Seemingly (and perhaps only seemingly) under the present Opposition its allegiance has shifted to nuclear. As well, the Minerals Council is a keen promotor of gas.
However, here are the facts: already renewables currently supply about 40 per cent of the grid’s electricity, and the Albanese government is aiming to have renewables supply 82 per cent of the grid by 2030. My own state of SA is already a world leader in renewable energy achieved with solar and wind, with Renew Economy’s Giles Parkinson (July 10th article) wondering why not more credit is given to this standout achievement. Parkinson quotes SA Energy Minister Koutsantonis’ jubilant announcement that with recently secured federal funding, South Australia would achieve 100 per cent renewable electricity as early as 2027.
At present in SA alone there are four additional batteries sites being constructed.
Unsurprisingly, the transmission lines in Port Augusta that the Opposition project expects to use for their nuclear project are already nearly full from new renewables. And in contrast with the flexibility of renewables, nuclear plants cannot be turned off at short notice.
TOO EXPENSIVE: ……………………………………………
TOO DANGEROUS: …………………………….
What of the impact on our driest continent? A significant fact is surely that a single nuclear power reactor operating for a single day typically consumes 36‒65 million litres of water.
Federal Environment Minister Bowen recently released work done by the ALP re impacts of nuclear power on agriculture (water consumption, accidents risks): Joint Ministerial Statement on Nuclear Reactors on Agricultural Land. An estimated 11,955 farms are situated within 80km of the seven nuclear reactors that the Federal Opposition has proposed for construction across regional Australia.
…………………………………………So WHY? One would think that with all the negatives listed above this would be the end of the story. Why would Peter Dutton reverse the previous Opposition policy to ban nuclear power?
Friends of the Earth expert Dr Jim Green and other environmentalists reveal a key reason:
“In fact, nuclear power would slow the shift away from fossil fuels, which is why fossil-fuel funded political parties and politicians support nuclear power (e.g. the Liberal / Nationals Coalition) and why organisations such as the Minerals Council of Australia support nuclear power. As Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin notes, support for nuclear power in Australia is, in practice, support for coal.”
Finally: a frightening thing for our democracy including the power of the States is the reality that the Coalition, if it were to gain federal power, plans to set up their own Nuclear Authority. This would simply ride over any Traditional Owner concern, any community concern and perhaps most frightening of all, could simply overturn any State jurisdiction. It would seem that the only way to ensure the Opposition’s nuclear plans are given no chance to come to fruition is to ensure they do remain just that: the Opposition’s nuclear plans.
Certainly the Opposition has made it increasingly clear that it has no ambition to respect Australian’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. As Mrs Crombie, a key leader of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta’s 1998-2004 successful national no nuclear dump campaign used to wonder, “Haven’t white people got grandchildren?” In 2024, Wendy Farmer, co-ordinator of the seven proposed nuclear power sites opposition communities has the same question: “Why would we do it and why would we waste the future generations?” https://theaimn.com/nuclear-concerns-hiroshima-maralinga-and-duttons-australia/
TOO IMPOSSIBLE: Just taking SMRs as one example: It seems to be of absolutely no consequence to federal Opposition members – in fact do they even know – that the Small Nuclear Reactors which they are proposing for Port Augusta SA and Muja WA do not actually yet exist? Certainly not in any OECD country.
TODAY. I would rather have tough-guy macho men, than slimy sweet-talk hypocrites
Well, I’m thinking about the big military leaders, like Austin Lloyd, the USA’s Defense Secretary. He’s no wimp . For one thing – he looks the part – he’s a big tough guy in an imposing uniform. He got lotsa medals for bravery in the invasion of Iraq . A four-star general, he was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Then he left the military to join the weapons-making firm Raytheon. Lloyd is a strong supporter of Israel, and of Saudi Arabia. He ordered air strikes against Syria. He’s ready to wage war against Iran, when that time is “needed”. Lloyd has declared “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. It is not negotiable. And it never will be.”
So – nobody can accuse Lloyd of weakness, of cowardice. We know where he stands – ready to lead the USA into its next war.
And as for the war in Ukraine – Austin has been an allout supporter of Ukraine, and devout American hater of Russia. BUT, he is opposed to the plan to supply Ukraine with long range attack missiles to send deep into Russia. He doesn’t see any military reason for this drastic step that would really provoke Putin. Previously, Austin rejected a plan for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. He saw it as not militarily useful and “to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia.”
There’s the clue – a “military reason”. Austin doesn’t mind war. It’s his business. But he’s not keen on unnecessary actions that are not useful militarily, but could bring chaos upon us. We know to be wary of belligerents like Austin, but at least there’s a certain logic in his actions.
Then we come to The case of the good-looking slim and silver-haired Antony Blinken in his lovely suits, (and he even plays the guitar). Here we have the ultimate in what a diplomat should be – well-spoken, charming, calming – just what you need for peaceful communication between nations?
Blinken struts the world stage, making motherhood statements about protecting civilians, promoting peace, human rights, and harmony – and sounding so good! All this lovely talk is a cover-up for what he is really supporting – American military hawkishness and Zionist genocide.
Blinken has consistently promoted US military interventions. During the Obama administration, Blinken pushed strongly for the overthrow of Libyan president Muammar al-Gaddafi. In the years before he became Secretary of State, Blinken co-founded and worked for the secretive WestExec Advisors firm, which lobbied the Pentagon on behalf of weapons-making companies.
In Blinken’s Senate confirmation hearing, he affirmed that he would be belligerent towards China and Venezuela. Even while he publicly supported U.S. policy for reviving a deal with Iran, he made belligerent statements against Iran.
And that is the typical Blinken way – say one thing, while promoting the opposite in action.
Blinken supports the plan for long-range missiles to be supplied to Ukraine – according to reports in the Guardian and the New York Times.
Not that I’m a fan of Lloyd Austin. Indeed, just like Blinken, Austin has made $millions from his work for weapons industries. As of October 2020, his Raytheon stock holdings were worth roughly $500,000 and his compensation, including stock, totaled $2.7 million. He was a partner in another weapons investment company Pine Island Capital, in which Antony Blinken is, or was, also involved.
Finally – my point is – I worry about the smarmy types like Antony Blinken. He is the epitome of the liars and hypocrites who cover up for governments. Ever in the media, Blinken lulls the world, including Americans, into the belief that America wants peace, that zealots like Zelensky and Netanyahu are right, that somehow – don’t worry – all will be well.
But ,worse than Lloyd Austin, Blinken doesn’t even grasp the military realities. At least Lloyd Austin doesn’t want to plunge us into World War 3 for the sake of a pointless military exercise like letting Ukraine send long range missiles to Moscow.
Memo to Dutton: It’s the final quarter, you’d better start kicking
David Crowe, Chief political correspondent, September 26, 2024
The game plan that turned Anthony Albanese from an opposition leader to a prime minister is known by a simple phrase he used for three years before he gained the top job. “I said that we had a plan: kick with the wind in the fourth quarter, outline our policies close to the election,” he said in the weeks after Labor took power.
Albanese tends not to use the phrase these days. No prime minister can tell voters they will only bother with big policies when the election comes. That is true even if it is a plain fact that Labor is working on new measures for the campaign ahead – and that changes to negative gearing may end up in the surprise package.
Peter Dutton, by contrast, lives the Albanese motto every single day. The opposition leader is holding back on every policy that would normally shape an Australian election: on the economy, the cost of living, housing and defence.
Even the glaring exception to that statement – his proposal for seven nuclear power stations – confirms the flimsiness of the Liberal policy platform. Dutton and his energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, are incredibly coy about how this policy might work. What would it cost? How long would it take? What replaces our ageing coal-fired power stations while we wait for nuclear?
“We will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing,” Dutton said in a speech to a business audience on Monday. Sure, it is common for opposition leaders to reveal their full costings shortly before the election. But they tend to put their big-picture policies on the agenda well before that final stage.
Dutton is running out of time. He is acting as if the last phase of this term of parliament is still months away. In fact, the final quarter is already upon us. It started last month, assuming the election is as late as May. And Dutton is yet to prove he can kick when it counts.
Liberals make a fair point about how to judge their policies: they may not have that many, but the ones they have are big and bold. This is absolutely true of the nuclear policy. No matter how many voters were alarmed at the Labor plans for negative gearing in 2019, the prospect of a nuclear accident may frighten a few more. It is a big idea and a huge political risk.
Dutton has leapt ahead of Albanese on a few fronts. He called in May last year for a ban on advertising sports betting during game broadcasts – an idea on which federal cabinet is yet to decide. He backed an age ban on social media earlier this year, months before Labor, thanks to early work by Coalition communications spokesman David Coleman…………………………………………………………………………..
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Dutton has the wind behind him in the opinion polls but looks reluctant to risk this good fortune by telling Australians what he would do with power. ……………………………………….
There is very little pressure on Dutton to move any faster because he has a disciplined frontbench and party room that waits for him to make the big calls on policy timing, as well as a supportive conservative media that tells him he is outsmarting Albanese at every turn. He avoids press conferences in Parliament House, so the press gallery gets relatively few opportunities to question him. He has a narrow list of preferred TV and radio spots. The media strategy spares him any exposure to long interviews that might test him on what he would do if he was running the country.
………………….. This is not proof that voters are buying what Dutton is selling, they say. After all, nobody is sure what he is selling just yet.
The Labor tacticians could be totally wrong, but the Liberals are certainly taking their time. If Dutton wants to kick with the wind in the final quarter, he will need to run a little faster. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/memo-to-dutton-it-s-the-final-quarter-you-d-better-start-kicking-20240926-p5kdn5.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFi2ChleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeggdYlx-0-WJO5vDD_9NYYsmgvm4WRwBII811EpOipDFB_gAdNsefsDnA_aem_h6jj8XixlRUr13A9QS0T-Q
Renewable and Energy storage jobs will soon overtake those in coal and gas
ReNewEconomy Jay Rutovitz, Chris Briggs & Eleanor Gerrard, Sep 26, 2024
The electricity workforce will need to double in five years to achieve Australia’s 2030 renewable energy target, our new report finds. More than 80% of these jobs will be in renewables. Jobs in energy storage alone will overtake domestic coal and gas jobs (not including the coal and gas export sector) in the next couple of years.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) updates its Integrated System Plan every two years. It’s a blueprint for the energy transition from coal to renewable energy. The plan lays out scenarios for how the electricity system might change to help put in place all the elements needed to make the transition happen.
AEMO and the RACE for 2030 co-operative research centre commissioned the Institute for Sustainable Futures to undertake modelling on the workforce needed for this transition. The “step change” scenario in the Integrated System Plan is broadly aligned with the 2030 renewables target. Under this scenario, we found the electricity workforce would need to grow from 33,000 to peak at 66,000 by 2029.
Rooftop solar and batteries together are projected to account for over 40% of these jobs. Wind farms will employ around one-third and solar farms just under 10%. Jobs would also treble in transmission line construction to connect renewables in regional areas to cities and other states in the next few years.
Job growth would surge in a ‘renewable energy superpower’
In the “green energy export” scenario, Australia becomes a “renewable energy superpower”. The country uses renewable energy to export green hydrogen and power heavy industry. In this scenario, the electricity workforce would almost treble to 96,000 by the late 2020s.
By 2033, after construction peaks, more than half of electricity sector jobs will be in operations and maintenance. This applies to both the step change and green energy export scenarios………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-storage-jobs-will-soon-overtake-those-in-coal-and-gas/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 