TODAY. Behind the really nasty “NICE” nuclear energy push to control the November COP Climate Change Conference
Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
The billionaires and other manipulators have been planning this for years
Their goal is to direct United Nations policy, and the finances for climate action, towards the nuclear industry . Their motives are mixed, but MONEY is the big one.
The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, more commonly known as COP29, will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan from 11 to 22 November, 2024.
The nuclear push is led by a relatively small phalanx of wealthy, powerful individuals – not many in number, compared to the many thousands of people who have qualms about the nuclear lobby running the show at Azerbaijan . But of course, the nuke lobby will be helped along by the fossil fuel giants. If nuclear is accepted as the cure for climate change, there will be a delay of decades for nuclear power to get going again – which means that oil, gas, coal will have full sway.
Nuclear and fossil fuel energies are partners in this crime against our planet.
Even at the 2015 COP Paris Climate Agreement, nuclear ‘influencers’ like Ernest Moniz and Bill Gates were touting the plan – nuclear as the cheap way to fund climate action. A plan quickly taken up by Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg – forming the Breakthrough Institute
Now it was time to really go for the tax-payers’ money, as Bill Gates launched Mission Innovation – to “increase government support” for new generation nuclear technologies. Mission Innovation involves 24 national governments, including the USA, Canada, China and India, the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank.
Joyce Nelson has outlined the development of this “nuclear for climate” push, kicking off the new enthusiasm for small nuclear reactors, especially in Canada, around 2018. No surprise that the scandal-ridden company SNC-Lavalin jumped onto this bandwagon, forming a consortium the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA)
By 2018, Gates was launching Breakthrough Energy Europe, a collaboration with the European Commission. In 1919 Canada hosted the Clean Energy Ministerial/Mission Innovation summit launching NICE -the “Nuclear Innovation Clean Energy Future”
M.V. Ramana warned in advance of the summit, “Note to Ministers from 25 countries: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
I doubt that the COP 29 summit has any credibility with intelligent people. Held in Azerbaijan, one of the world’s worst petrochemical autocracies, this supposed climate action meeting will be one blatant front for the fossil fuel lobby, as well as the nuclear one.
Sad to have the United Nations sponsoring this pack of liars.
Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
Government agencies and departmental officials spend full day scrutinising Peter Dutton’s controversial plan to build seven nuclear power plants.
Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, 24 Oct 24
A senior government nuclear safety official says the sites of coal-fired power plants “might not be adequate” to house the opposition’s proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors.
Government agencies and departmental officials were grilled in parliament on Wednesday at a government-backed inquiry into nuclear energy. The inquiry was tasked with scrutinising the Coalition’s controversial plan to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear power and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites.
Several officials told the inquiry it would take at least 10 to 15 years to start generating nuclear power once a future government confirmed an intention to build reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has said the Coalition expects to be able to build a small reactor by 2035 or a larger reactor as early as 2037.
The Coalition has said putting reactors at the sites of coal-fired power stations would reduce the need to build expensive transmission lines and towers to connect renewables to the grid.
At Wednesday’s inquiry, the Nationals MP Darren Chester asked the chief regulatory officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Jim Scott, if that approach could save time.
Scott said it likely would, but added that this “presupposes that the sites of current coal-fired plants would be adequate for nuclear sites, because that might not be the case”.
He said: “You have to look at external events – flooding, natural events – that could occur. That’s part of the siting process. Given that, the potential issue [is] that the sites of current coal-fired plants might not be adequate for nuclear plants.”
Simon Duggan, a deputy secretary in the energy department, listed some of the steps that would be needed for nuclear to go ahead, including setting up management frameworks for health, safety, security, environmental impacts, as well as transport of nuclear fuels and waste, storage of waste and the workforce capability to build, maintain and regulate plants.
“Based on the work and the assessments that you have seen from bodies such as CSIRO and the [International Energy Agency] you are looking at around a 10- to 15-year timeframe to put all those prerequisites in place in order to have nuclear power capability in Australia,” Duggan said.
Many officers raised the issue of social licence and community consultation, saying this would be a critical step if any nuclear reactors were to be built in the future.
The opposition energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, who is also deputy chair of the inquiry, attacked analysis from the energy department which the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said showed the Coalition’s plan would mean a gap of at least 18% between electricity supply and demand.
Duggan said the analysis was based on assumptions supplied by the minister, where there would be no new investment in renewable energy, and that coal-fired power stations would stick to the closure schedule assumed by the Australian Energy Market Operator…………………………………………….
Clare Savage, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, told the inquiry she did not believe nuclear could be deployed in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants, which she said were becoming increasingly less reliable as they aged.
She told the inquiry that on the same day of the hearing, 26% of the total capacity of Australia’s coal-fired power fleet was offline. Eleven per cent of the coal fleet was down due to unplanned outages, she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/24/peter-dutton-nuclear-plant-sites-issues
Top Australian honour (whaa-at !!!!) for American politician who helped push Australia into the shonky AUKUS agreement
Rex Patrick, 24 Oct 24
Albanese pours $5B of Australian taxpayers’ cash into US shipyards (with no guarantee #AUKUS subs will ever be delivered). He then arranges for the local US Congressman to get a top Australian honour. Icing on the cake for that guy.
Rep. Courtney to receive Australia’s top civilian award
WSHU | By Brian Scott-Smith, October 23, 2024
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT-2) has been chosen for one of Australia’s top civilian awards. Courtney is one of a few Americans to be given the Order of Australia, which recognizes extraordinary service by a non-citizen…………………… He has also been instrumental in the AUKUS trilateral defense agreement between Australia, the UK and the U.S. to help provide nuclear submarines to Australia. It’s the first time the U.S. has entered into such an agreement with another country…….. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2024-10-23/ct-joe-courtney-australia-civilian-award
Australian nuclear news 21 – 28 October.
- Event: 5 November Protest weapons manufacturer conference in Canberra
- Support for nuclear power will evaporate at next election, Chris Bowen predicts
- Australia votes at the UN General Assembly.
- New Paper: Nuclear Weapons and Our Climate
- Australian Civil Society Statement for COP29 Baku, Azerbaijan.
- BAE Systems fire: blaze at shipyard ‘could delay Aukus’
- Low-level nuclear waste from submarines to be stored at Osborne, South Australia‘
- You couldn’t make this up’: Expert pans Ontario nuclear option.
- Crisafulli victory sets up awkward clash over nuclear.
- Atomic power probe shows experts divided on nuclear energy.
- Coalition’s nuclear plan is ‘today’s version of a lump of coal in parliament’, inquiry told.
- Matt Kean lambasts ‘wild fantasy’ of former Coalition colleagues to extend coal power and build nuclear plants
- Ambassador John Bolton tells 7NEWS Donald Trump re-election could mean AUKUS nuclear submarines plan torn up
- Drink up: Peter Dutton needs one billion empty Coke cans to store his nuclear waste
- Crisafulli at odds with Federal Coalition on nuclear
- Union slams “false hope” in nuclear push, warns energy jobs at risk
- Too old, too expensive: Coal can’t wait for nuclear, says energy regulator
- I’ll be the best friend you ever had, Peter Dutton promises miners.
- BHP’s untenable extraction of Great Artesian Basin waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine.
- Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
- Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.
- Delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear
- Nuclear too slow to replace coal by 2035.
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy
The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy was established by a resolution of appointment that passed the House of Representatives on 10 October 2024.
The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025. The Committee will cease to exist upon presenting its final report.
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy
We will inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:
deployment timeframes;
fuel supply, and transport of fuel;
uranium enrichment capability;
waste management, transport and storage;
water use and impacts on other water uses;
relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;
Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;
risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;
potential share of total energy system mix;
necessary land acquisition;
costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;
the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and
any other relevant matter.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 