Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

This week’s counteracting the nuclear spin

Some bits of good news: European cities embrace nature-based solutions,  What went right this week: in the UK green energy records hit .    China’s Falling Emissions Signal Peak Carbon May Already Be Here –  Carbon Brief notes first decline since the end of the pandemic.- Renewables meet nearly all of nation’s additional power needs  

TOP STORIES. Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky. US Endgame in Ukraine — War Without End, Amen.Biden Lets Ukraine Strike Russia With US Weapons While Ukraine Attacks Russian Nuclear Defenses.Presidents Who Gamble With Nuclear Armageddon.

Climate. Humanity’s survival is still within our grasp – just. But only if we take these radical steps. ‘Unliveable’: Delhi’s residents struggle to cope in record-breaking heat. Heatwaves increase risk of early births and poorer health in babies, study finds. “Truly the stuff of nightmares”: unprecedented low in Antarctic sea ice recorded.  

Noel’s notes.  “Don’t let the people see what is happening” – the forgotten lesson from the Vietnam war. Turning Point .The bomb and the cold war. Episode 4: The Wall – outlines the nuclear weapons race. Jobs jobs jobs in the nuclear industry – but is it true?        What is criminal in Ukraine, is God’s righteousness in Gaza

Nuclear.  The USA’s intrepid nuclear saleswoman, Jennifer Graholm, touts big nuclear reactors as a great success, speaking of the greatest U.S. financial nuclear boondoggle – the Vogtle nuclear reactors. Does anybody believe this?

*************************************************

AUSTRALIA. 

NUCLEAR ISSUES.

ATROCITIES. Gaza: After ICJ order to halt attacks on Rafah, Israel launches over 60 air raids on the city in 48 hours.,CULTURE. The US Empire Isn’t A Government That Runs Nonstop Wars, It’s A Nonstop War That Runs A Government.EDUCATION. Ukrainian Grad Students Complete Nuclear Internship Program in the United States.EMPLOYMENT. Dounreay nuclear site workers strike in pay dispute.

ENERGY. The (currently terrible) mood in renewables… is largely irrelevant.
‘Offshore wind farms could have averted Fukushima disaster’.
A global review of Battery Storage: the fastest growing clean energy technology today.		EVENTS.10 June WEBINAR: Using JFK’s wisdom to make peace today – with Jeffrey Sachs16 June .WEBINAR. Gaza and Ukraine to WWIII: The NATO Problem.
16 June – WEBINAR -“NATO IN THE ARCTIC”
LEGAL. To continue the Gaza genocide, Israel and the US must destroy the laws of war.
Tribunal judge accused of covering up complaints – about bullying at Sellafield nuclear plant and other sites.		MEDIA. SOS – An Antidote to Crackpot Neo-Nuclearism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDF1bLN9K8c
Searchlight Journalist Receives 2024 MOLLY Award for Story on Trucheña Whose Plutonium Count Was New Mexico’s Highest.		PLUTONIUM.
Plutonium found in Indiana Street air filters near Rocky Flats; Boulder Commissioners reconsider trail project.
POLITICS. White House to support new nuclear power plants in the U.S. US Energy Secretary calls for more nuclear power while celebrating $35 billion Georgia reactors. Trump and Elon Musk discussing advisory role in next administration.
The UK Is Ramping Up Its Nuclear Energy Ambitions. Call for next UK government to make ‘big decisions’ on nuclear power projects		POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Rare spat shows China and North Korea still at odds on nuclear weapons.
China and Russia Issue Nuclear Warnings.
Russian think tank proposes ‘demonstrative’ nuclear blast to deter Western support for Ukraine.The ghost of Concorde stalks the Franco-British nuclear renaissance.
SAFETY. 2 aging central Japan nuclear reactors get 20-yr service extensions.
Drone sightings reported over British nuclear facilities.		SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS.US-NATO attack 3 Russian space early warning facilities.
Space junk is raining from the sky. Who’s responsible when it hits the Earth?.
Elon’s Gone to Mars-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi0mVvE9nYQ
TECHNOLOGY. Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report.URANIUM. Iran’s Near Bomb-Grade Uranium Stock Grows Ahead of ElectionWASTES. Pledge sought that laid-up Rosyth subs won’t go to Australia.
A robot will soon try to remove melted nuclear fuel from destroyed Fukushima reactor. Fukushima nuclear debris removal to begin as early as August.
WAR and CONFLICT. US strike on Russian targets would be ‘start of world war’ – Medvedev. Putin warns West about consequences of long-range strikes on Russia. U.S. concerned about Ukraine strikes on Russian nuclear radar stations. Italy opposes Ukraine using long-range weapons to strike Russia.
Israel Continues Gaza Attacks Despite UN Court Order To ‘Immediately Halt’ Rafah Offensive. Operation al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 237: As Israel’s invasion of Rafah and northern Gaza continues, Smotrich calls for ‘war’ on West Bank		WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. CNN Analysis Reveals US-Made Munitions Used in Rafah Massacre.
Top Biden aides signal openness to letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons.
US doubtful it could help Korea on nuclear-powered subs.

June 4, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Every day between now and the election’: Albanese ignites nuclear fight with Dutton

SMH, By James Massola, June 2, 2024

……………………..  the prime minister highlighted recent CSIRO research that found nuclear power is up to eight times more expensive than large-scale wind or solar power.

“They also found building a single nuclear power plant would cost at least $8.5 billion and take 15 years. At the next election, we will offer voters a choice between renewable energy and nuclear power,” he said.

“We will raise this every day between now and the election. [Dutton] needs to stop hiding his plans and release the locations of these planned nuclear reactors. We will join communities in campaigning against them.”………………………………..

The prime minister said Dutton had promised to look communities that could host nuclear power plants in the eye and engage with them but “he hasn’t been anywhere near [them]”.

“He has not been within 40 kilometres of a coal-fired power station. And he’s saying they’ll have six or more sites. He’s been nowhere near any of them in Gippsland, the Hunter, Flynn, Maranoa, O’Connor, seats like this,” Albanese said.

Back in 2007, when he was infrastructure spokesman in the Kevin Rudd-led opposition, Albanese helped lead Labor’s attack against John Howard’s plans to build nuclear power plants across the country – and he has not forgotten those lessons.

…………………Dutton had initially flagged the nuclear policy would be outlined before last month’s federal budget, but that timeline has since slipped.

This masthead then revealed the Coalition planned to unveil either six or seven sites had been selected to host nuclear power plants in the current parliamentary sitting fortnight but following that report, the opposition pressed pause on the announcement once more.

The Coalition’s policy announcement has now been pencilled in for the week after next, once parliament has risen at the end of next week, and is expected to take place outside of Canberra.

Possible sites for nuclear reactors include the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in Western Australia, Port Augusta in South Australia, and even potentially a plant in Nationals leader David Littleproud’s electorate of Maranoa in south-west Queensland. All of these locations are on the site of, or near, current or former coal-fired power plants.

Coalition sources, who asked not to be named so they could detail internal discussions about the policy, said the six or seven MPs who would potentially host nuclear power plants in their seats had been notified.

…………………. Labor strategists believe that once the potential sites are named – all of which are expected to be in Coalition seats – that will sharpen the political debate and force voters to consider the implications of having a power plant in their own seat.

A Dutton-led government, if elected, would face a fight with state Labor premiers including Victoria’s Jacinta Allan, NSW’s Chris Minns and Western Australia’s Roger Cook, who have all hosed down suggestions their states could host nuclear power plants.

Queensland Opposition Leader David Crisafulli, who is widely expected to lead the LNP to victory in a state election in October, has indicated he would not back nuclear power unless it had bipartisan support at a federal level.

Albanese said the Labor government opposed the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia for four main reasons.

“Nuclear reactors are simply wrong for Australia, the International Energy Agency said that this week, they support nuclear reactors but for Australia, given the comparative costs and time frames, it makes no sense given that we have access to the best renewables on Earth, along with hydro, batteries and gas to firm them,” he said.

“Second is nuclear is too slow [to build] to keep the lights on, the CSIRO speak about 15 years at least for it to happen. So you’re talking about 2040 just small modular nuclear reactors and years later, if they want to go down the large-scale route and Australia doesn’t have that time.”

“Third, relates to cost, nuclear will push up power bills – independent analysis from CSIRO, AEMO [the Australian Energy Market Operator], says nuclear is the most expensive form of energy to build. And the fourth is communities don’t want nuclear. That includes state LNP leaders that have said that, local councils, state and indeed even [federal] coalition MPs like Darren Chester and Dan Tehan.”

Back in March, 12 Coalition MPs told this masthead they backed lifting the moratorium on nuclear power in Australia but would not commit to hosting a nuclear power plant in their own electorate.

And Nationals MP Darren Chester, who holds the Victorian seat of Gippsland, which is widely considered a probable pick for a nuclear site, said he would not accept a site unless his community was handed a significant economic package.  
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/every-day-between-now-and-the-election-albanese-ignites-nuclear-fight-with-dutton-20240601-p5jigh.html

June 4, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station?

Guardian, Gabrielle Chan, 4 June 24

The Coalition’s energy policy is leveraged on regional discontent about renewables. But many farmers don’t want nuclear in their back yard either.

Here’s the thing about the Coalition’s latest nuclear policy. It tries to use one of the most contentious issues in rural areas, which is the rollout of renewables and the electricity transmission lines to carry energy around the country, to push an even more controversial energy transition.

Because nuclear power stations would also be built in the regions. And if you’re worried about renewables, hands up who wants a nuclear reactor next door?

My generation grew up with the US-Russian cold war and the Doomsday Clock.

While the conversation and the technology of nuclear energy has moved on, the cost, complexity and construction time has not, as the CSIRO found in a report released last month………………………

If there is one thing that I have learned from calling a country town home, it is that people are very attached to their place and how it is identified.

Not everyone opposes renewables but there is a significant portion of people who don’t want them in their own back yard. Others are quietly making their fortunes, having struck the formula for drought-proofing their businesses for decades to come. If the Big Dry strikes, you will probably find them on a beach somewhere.

That is because annual payments to host turbines start from $40,000 each though I know of agreements that are much higher, especially when communities collectively bargain. The New South Wales government pays landowners $200,000 to host transmission lines in annual instalments over 20 years, with Victoria paying the same over 25 years.

Those payments have crept up because of ongoing regional protests. That action has been amplified by poor community consultation from some energy companies highlighted in the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer’s report. He found the rollout had created “material distrust” of developers in some communities.

Discontent is also being amplified for political purposes, including by David Littleproud, Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan, who spoke at a rally against renewables at parliament house.

The politics is clear. For starters, the long lead time kicks the nuclear energy can down the road to 2040. The Liberals cannot walk naked into the next election without at least a fig leaf for a net zero policy. The Nationals, on the other hand, don’t give a toss about net zero. They just want to extract the funding from the Liberals in compensation for hosting any technology that delivers on the net zero promise. Nuclear can be that fig leaf.

It is also true the Nats and the country Liberals will have to wear any pushback on where nuclear facilities are placed. They won’t be able to campaign against their own policy like some do on renewables.

Peter Dutton has not, as yet, specifically named any potential sites for a nuclear power station but he has pointed to current coal production facilities that are due to close. His announcement is imminent, perhaps even after the party room meeting on Tuesday.

Possible sites include the Hunter Valley in NSW; Anglesea and Latrobe Valley in Victoria; Port Augusta in South Australia; Collie in Western Australia; and perhaps Tarong in central Queensland – within Littleproud’s Maranoa electorate.

Since then the game has begun to get Coalition MPs to commit to host or rule out a reactor in their own back yard.

This is a bit silly really, because apart from the ACT, which renewable-supporting metropolitan MPs could commit to hosting a wind turbine or a solar farm in their city seats?

Littleproud and Joyce have both indicated their approval to host a reactor. But a dozen others would not commit when asked by Nine newspapers.

Keith Pitt told Nine he supported lifting the moratorium on nuclear power but, alas, there were technical restrictions, including earthquakes in his electorate. But if Pitt is worried about his area, other MPs might be scurrying to the Geoscience Australia map of faultlines for their own get-out-of-jail-free card.

Pitt’s seat of Hinkler looks like a shoo-in compared to the faultlines under Darren Chester’s Gippsland electorate, which covers the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, or the Liberal MP Rick Wilson’s seat of O’Connor, which covers Collie in WA…………………………………………..

Once you combine the feelings of the existing populations with younger populations, does that add up to support for nuclear over renewables in these changing back yards? I wouldn’t bet on it.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/04/liberal-coalition-nuclear-power-plant-policy-renewable-energy

June 4, 2024 Posted by | politics | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. “Don’t let the people see what is happening” – the forgotten lesson from the Vietnam war.

Dear oh dear!. The USA had learned this lesson – too much TV coverage of US troops suffering and dying, and worse, what was being done to the Vietnamese, with abuses like napalm and the My Lai massacre in 1968. The American public was shocked –  riots in cities and university campuses across the nation. What a mistake! – this coverage – regretfully, – the USA had to withdraw their troops in 1973, and lose this lovely war.

But the lesson was well learned. Next time – The Iraq war coverage was a marvel of distant fireworks exhibitions. Lovely coverage of pretty explosions across Iraq. Not a human casualty in sight.

The USA authorities were in control of the “home “media coverage in the Iraq war, and then the Afghanistan one. And indeed, now the Ukraine war is a model of “correct” coverage.

The USA is doing an effective job on Ukraine. In the Ukraine case, we are constantly reassured that of course Ukraine can beat Russia. There are TV visuals and radio podcasts constant reminders of brutality and atrocities by Russians, the brave sufferings of Ukrainians, and of their brave leader Zelensky, versus the tyrant Putin. And of course, lots of Russian soldiers are getting killed, which must be a good thing, mustn’t it?

All that is no doubt true. But we don’t see any atrocities by Ukrainians. We don’t see the sufferings of ethnic and Russian-language Ukrainians over the 10 years of struggle in the Donbass region. We don’t see any questioning of Zelensky’s wisdom in refusing to negotiate with Russia, any questioning of the massive slaughter of Ukrainian troops.

As is the tradition in wartime, in the Ukraine case, the Western media is very successfully brainwashing us . Any questioning of this narrative is immediately dismissed as “disinformation”. A good case in point is the Russian news outlet Rt.com. Yes. of course, much of Rt’s information is indeed propaganda. But some of it is indeed true – facts that are ignored or hidden by the Western media.

So – the Ukraine war drags on – and we all cheer for Zelensky.

The Gaza situation is something different.

It is a technology thing. In Vietnam, it was TV coverage. Even in Ukraine, there are carefully controlled images from Western journalists “embedded” in the Ukraine army. But now – there’s the mobile phone. And suddenly there is real life footage of the genocidal atrocity going on in Gaza.

It is laughable that emissaries like Antony Blinken can run around the world bleating about Israel’s “right to defend itself”, and Joe Biden can make pious statements about how Israel should behave nicely.

Sorry, warmongers, but people now see what Israel, backed by the USA, is doing to Palestinians – and for Gaza, people are not buying Western propaganda.

June 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear Shaping Up To Be The Big Issue Next Election

 https://10play.com.au/theproject/articles/nuclear-shaping-up-to-be-the-big-issue-next-election/tpa240602vcgxm 2 June 24 We’ve just passed the two-year anniversary of Anthony Albanese being elected as the Prime Minister of Australia, and now rumours are swirling around when the PM will call the next election.

And there’s one issue that shapes up to be a cornerstone election issue when we go to the polls. 

The battle lines have been drawn and nuclear power plants are at the centre of them.

The Prime Minister has set the agenda for the remainder of his term, saying the government will campaign on the issue until the day Australia heads to the polls.

It’s been almost two years since the opposition leader first flagged his nuclear policy proposal, but the devil is in the details, and that’s precisely what the PM says is missing.

It comes as rumours swirl around whether Anthony Albanese will call an early election when he still has more than a year left to do so.

And while the PM has repeatedly said he intends to serve a full term… There are a few reasons he may decide not to.

The impact of foreign forces could also play a role in his decision.

So will Albo stick to his guns and hold out until next year, and will the next campaign go totally nuclear. 

June 3, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

“We haven’t been consulted:” Coal town on transition to renewables is not interested in nuclear

ReNewEconomy, Aaron Bunch, Jun 2, 2024

A Western Australian coal town lined up as a potential site for a nuclear power station by the federal Coalition says the plan is a distraction as it works to ditch fossil fuels and transition to renewables and storage.

The federal coalition has floated plans to add nuclear energy to the power grid should it win government by building reactors at sites currently home to either coal or gas-fired power stations.

The sites have not yet been announced but the list is widely reported to include Collie, 200km south of Perth and home to about 7500 people, where a state government-supported pivot away from the coal industry is underway. It is the site for two of the country’s biggest battery storage projects.

Shire President Ian Miffling said the state $662 million Just Transition plan had created a “buzz” in the town and the federal coalition’s nuclear power plan hadn’t received much attention.

“Collie hasn’t been consulted at all and we don’t know any of the details of the policy and what they propose, so we’ve not given it too much credence at this stage,” he told AAP…………………

Mr Miffling said locals were focused on bolstering their skills for jobs in new industries, like the recently approved green steel mill and Synergy’s $1.6 billion battery to store renewable energy once coal is retired as an energy supply in 2030.

“The potential for nuclear, which would be a long way down the track, is a bit of a distraction and it really doesn’t need us to spend too much time talking about it at this point,” he said………………..

Local state Labor MP Jodie Hanns said federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and the coalition were out of touch with what was happening on the ground in Collie and floating plans for a reactor in the town was “arrogant and disrespectful”……………………….

“No one I’ve spoken to is in support of a nuclear reactor being put in Collie … my house will be up for sale if this becomes a reality.”

AMWU state secretary Steve McCartney said Collie workers had been discussing for years what they wanted for the town after coal mining ended, “and I can guarantee you one of the things wasn’t a nuclear power station”…………… https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-havent-been-consulted-coal-town-on-transition-to-renewables-is-not-interested-in-nuclear

June 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, Western Australia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Summary of Australian federal and state/territory nuclear/uranium laws and prohibitions.

Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick guide

From Jim Green, 30 May 2024

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2324/Quick_Guides/NuclearActivitiesProhibitions
PDF Version [564KB]
Dr Emily Gibson
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources; Law and Bills Digest Sections
This quick guide provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under Commonwealth, state and territory laws. It considers the primary legislation most relevant to current policy debates about domestic nuclear energy only and consequently does not consider recent changes to Commonwealth law to facilitate Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.[1] It also does not include consideration of Australia’s international obligations in respect of nuclear activities, including the safeguarding of nuclear materials and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.


If a domestic nuclear energy industry were to progress, it is expected that a comprehensive framework for the safety, security and safeguarding of the related nuclear material would need to be legislated to accommodate such an industry.[2] Consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.

What are nuclear activities?

A nuclear activity is any process or step in the utilisation of material capable of undergoing nuclear fission; that is, any activities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[3] Nuclear activities therefore include:

  • mining of nuclear or radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium milling, refining, treatment, processing, reprocessing, fabrication or enrichment of nuclear material  
  • the production of nuclear energy 
  • the construction, operation or decommissioning of a mine, plant, facility, structure, apparatus or equipment used in the above activities
  • the use, storage, handling, transportation, possession, acquisition, abandonment or disposal of nuclear materials, apparatus or equipment.

Prohibitions on nuclear activities

Commonwealth

Nuclear activities are regulated under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998

The ARPANS Act establishes a licensing framework for controlled persons (including a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth contractor) in relation to controlled facilities (a nuclear installation, a prescribed radiation facility, or a prescribed legacy site).[4] A nuclear installation includes a nuclear reactor for research or the production of radioactive materials for industrial or medical use, and a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018.[5]

The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency   (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7]

However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act establishes 9 matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and provides for the assessment and approval of these actions if the action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the MNES.[9] ‘Nuclear actions’ are one of the MNES.[10] Where a nuclear action is determined to be a controlled action (that is, one likely to have a significant impact and requiring assessment and approval under the Act), the assessment considers the impact of a nuclear action on the environment generally (including people and communities).[11]

The Act establishes offences for the taking of nuclear actions in those circumstances.[14]

Similarly, the Act provides that a relevant entity (as set out below) must not take an action (including a nuclear action) unless a requisite approval has been obtained under Part 9 of the Act or a relevant exception applies:

  • a person must not take a relevant action on Commonwealth land that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment[15]   
  •  a person must not take a relevant action outside Commonwealth land if the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land[16]  
  • the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not take inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction.[17]

The Act establishes offences and civil penalty provisions for the taking of an action in those circumstances.[18]

Subsection 140A(1) prohibits the Minister for the Environment from granting an approval for a nuclear action relating to specified nuclear installations. These installations are a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant, and a reprocessing facility.

Potential reform of the nuclear action trigger

The second independent review of the EPBC Act, completed in October 2020 by Professor Graeme Samuel (Samuel Review), recommended that the nuclear actions MNES be retained.[19] The review recommended that ‘the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements of [ARPANSA] should be aligned, to support the implementation of best-practice international approaches based on risk of harm to the environment, including the community’.[20]

In 2022, the Government’s Nature Positive Plan adopted this approach and stated, ‘[a] uniform national approach to regulation of radiation will be delivered through the new National Environmental Standards’.

In February 2024, a policy draft of the National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance indicates that ‘nuclear actions’ will be renamed ‘radiological exposure actions’ and states:

Relevant decisions must:

   Not be inconsistent with the ARPANSA national codesfor protection from radiological exposure actions including in relation to:   

  1.  human health and environmental risks and outcomes; and. radiological impacts on biological diversity, 
  2. the conservation of species and the natural health of ecosystems.[22]

States and territories

States and territories generally regulate nuclear and radiation activities through either the health or the environmental protection portfolios. The relevant legislation provides for the protection of health and safety of people, and the protection of property and the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation by establishing licensing regimes to regulate the possession, use, and transportation of radiation sources and substances.[23] Mining of radioactive materials is regulated through the resources portfolio.

In addition, as outlined below, the states and territories have legislation prohibiting certain nuclear activities or the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities. Importantly, where permitted, nuclear activities (including mining) would also be subject to assessment and approvals under a range of other legislation, including planning and environmental impact assessment, native title and cultural heritage, and radiation licensing laws at the state or territory and Commonwealth level.

New South Wales

Exploration for uranium has been permitted under the Mining Act 1992 since 2012.[24] However, the mining of uranium is prohibited by the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 (NSW Prohibitions Act).[25]

The NSW Prohibitions Act also prohibits the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment facilities, fabrication and reprocessing plants, nuclear power plants, and storage and waste disposal facilities (other than for the storage and disposal of waste from research or medical purposes, or the relevant radiological licensing Act).[26]

Northern Territory

The Atomic Energy Act 1953 (Cth) provides that the Commonwealth owns all uranium found in the territories.[27] Uranium exploration and mining in the Northern Territory (NT) is regulated under both NT mining laws (the Mineral Titles Act 2010 and the Mining Management Act 2001) and the Atomic Energy Act.[28] The Ranger Uranium Mine operated until 2021 and is now undergoing rehabilitation.[29]

The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT.[30] Nuclear waste is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.[31]

This Act also:

  •  prohibits public funds from being expended, granted or advanced to any person for, or for encouraging or financing any activity associated with the development, construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility  
  •  would require the NT Parliament to hold an inquiry into the likely impact of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed by the Commonwealth on the cultural, environmental and socio‑economic wellbeing of the territory.[32]

Queensland

Exploration for and mining of uranium are permitted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. However, it has been government policy to not grant mining leases for uranium since 2015.[33] The government policy ban extends to the treatment or processing of uranium within the state.[34]

The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007, in similar terms to the NSW Prohibitions Act, prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[35]

Unlike other state and territory prohibition legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act would require the responsible Queensland Minister to hold a plebiscite to gain the views of the Queensland population if the Minister was satisfied that the Commonwealth Government has taken, or is likely to take, steps to amend a Commonwealth law or exercise a power under a Commonwealth law to facilitate the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility, or if the Commonwealth Government adopts a policy position of supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.[36]

South Australia

The exploration and mining of radioactive material (including uranium) is permitted in South Australia (SA), subject to approvals under the Mining Act 1971 and the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 (RP&C Act).[37] For example, uranium is mined at Olympic Dam, Four Mile and Honeymoon. However, conversion and enrichment activities are prohibited by the RP&C Act.[38]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 prohibits the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility.[39]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facilities.[40] The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised under a Commonwealth law.[41]

Tasmania

The exploration and mining of atomic substances (which includes uranium and thorium) is permitted under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (Tas), subject to approval.

Victoria

The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits a range of activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including the exploration and mining of uranium and thorium, and the construction or operation of facilities for the conversion or enrichment of any nuclear material, nuclear reactors and facilities for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from those prohibited activities.[42]

Western Australia

Exploration for and mining of uranium is permitted under the Mining Act 1978. A state policy ban on mining approvals was overturned in November 2008;[43] however, this was reinstated in June 2017, with a ‘no uranium’ condition on future mining leases.[44] The ban does not apply to 4 projects that had already been approved by the previous government.

The Nuclear Activities Regulation Act 1978 aims to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from possible harmful effects of nuclear activities, including by regulating the mining and processing of uranium and the equipment used in those processes. The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 also prohibits the storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste (including waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons).[45]

Can the Commonwealth override a state ban on nuclear activities?

The Commonwealth Parliament only has the power to make laws in relation to matters specified in the Constitution of Australia, including in sections 51, 52 and 122. Assuming the Commonwealth has a sufficient head of power to legislate, section 109 of the Constitution specifically provides for circumstances in which there might be an inconsistency between Commonwealth and state laws:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Therefore, even though some states have enacted prohibitions on certain nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, the Commonwealth Parliament could enact specific legislation in relation to nuclear activities so that such activities can take place within those jurisdictions. One such example is the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth), which provides for the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility at a site to be declared by the responsible Commonwealth Minister. Section 12 of that Act provides that state and territory laws have no effect in regulating, hindering, or preventing such a facility

Further information

June 2, 2024 Posted by | ACT, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, reference, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear plan a ‘distraction’ as coal town transitions

Canberra Times, By Aaron Bunch,  June 1 2024

 A Western Australian coal town lined up as a potential site for a nuclear power station says the plan is a distraction as it works to ditch fossil fuels.

The federal coalition has floated plans to add nuclear energy to the power grid should it win government by building reactors at sites currently home to either coal or gas-fired power stations.

The sites have not yet been announced but the list is believed to include Collie, 200km south of Perth and home to about 7500 people, where a state government-supported pivot away from the coal industry is underway.

Shire President Ian Miffling said the $662 million Just Transition plan had created a “buzz” in the town and the federal coalition’s nuclear power plan hadn’t received much attention.

“Collie hasn’t been consulted at all and we don’t know any of the details of the policy and what they propose, so we’ve not given it too much credence at this stage,” he told AAP.

“(But) you don’t have to be Einstein to know that Collie would have to be on the radar, considering that we’ve got coal-fired power stations with the hub of the transmission network and it’s probably where all the all the connections would be made.”

Mr Miffling said locals were focused on bolstering their skills for jobs in new industries, like the recently approved green steel mill and Synergy’s $1.6 billion battery to store renewable energy once coal is retired as an energy supply in 2030.

“The potential for nuclear, which would be a long way down the track, is a bit of a distraction and it really doesn’t need us to spend too much time talking about it at this point,” he said…………………………………………………

Local state Labor MP Jodie Hanns said federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and the coalition were out of touch with what was happening on the ground in Collie and floating plans for a reactor in the town was “arrogant and disrespectful”.

“The federal Liberals are not interested in a conversation about Collie, their only interest is in the politics,” she said.

“And the losers in this (are) my community and the people that live and work here.”

She said the transition, which started in 2018, had created certainty for the community as it forged its future after more than 100 years of coal mining.

“My husband works at the power station and he is a transitioning worker. What’s happening in conversations around my dining table at home is happening in in other households around Collie,” she said.

“No one I’ve spoken to is in support of a nuclear reactor being put in Collie … my house will be up for sale if this becomes a reality.”

AMWU state secretary Steve McCartney said Collie workers had been discussing for years what they wanted for the town after coal mining ended, “and I can guarantee you one of the things wasn’t a nuclear power station”……………………………..

WA Liberals energy spokesman Steve Thomas on Sunday said Mr Dutton’s plan wouldn’t work in the west because the state’s power system was too small to accommodate a large, cost-effective nuclear power plant……………….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8648571/nuclear-plan-a-distraction-as-coal-town-transitions/

June 2, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scott Morrison on the revolving door- government nuclear AUKUS deal, to Dyne, company advising on AUKUS

As a strategic advisor to DYNE, Morrison hopes to advance investment in dual-use technologies — inventions that have military and civilian applications. That innovation is being helped by the second pillar of AUKUS, the one that has to do with tearing down military-industrial trade barriers between the US, UK and Australia. 

Facing post-Parliament poverty, multitasking Morrison looks to seafloor for riches

What to do when your taxpayer-funded salary drops from $549k, to $225k, to nothing? Multitask, of course.

Crikey, ANTON NILSSON, MAY 30, 2024

Scott Morrison has yet another new job — and like some of his other post-Parliament gigs, it’s tangentially linked to the AUKUS submarine pact he helped set up as prime minister. 

The Age reports Morrison is listed as a strategic advisor at a newly created venture called the Seafloor Minerals Fund, alongside ex-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo. Both men are also behind venture capital firm DYNE, set up to support the strategic goals of AUKUS, and which also has interests in deep sea mining, according to the story. 

Crikey figured it was time to have another look at Morrison’s post-politics career. 

In need of cash …………………………………………..

Multitasking 

So what has Morrison done to set himself up for success? His LinkedIn lists three jobs: author, non-executive vice chairman of American Global Strategies, and board member at “various companies”. The voters who brought you Scott Morrison want stronger anti-corruption protectionsRead More

As an author, he’s already published his first work: the religious memoir Plans For Your Good. The book was aimed at the $1.175 billion US Christian book market, but in Australia, it’s reportedly sold very few copies so far. 

At American Global Strategies, Morrison is working with two former Donald Trump staffers to “help clients navigate a highly dynamic geopolitical landscape that presents risks and opportunities”, in the ex-PM’s own words. 

As a strategic advisor to DYNE, Morrison hopes to advance investment in dual-use technologies — inventions that have military and civilian applications. That innovation is being helped by the second pillar of AUKUS, the one that has to do with tearing down military-industrial trade barriers between the US, UK and Australia. The new gig, with the Seafloor Minerals Fund, will set Morrison and Pompeo up for taking advantage of the estimated trillions of dollars in rare metals estimated to be on the seafloor. According to The Age, Australians can expect a fierce future debate about the merits and risks of mining the seabed for minerals, as China seeks to do the same.  https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/30/scott-morrison-seafloor-minerals-fund/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1717042244

June 2, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

TODAY. Turning Point .The bomb and the cold war. Episode 4: The Wall – outlines the nuclear weapons race.

Introduction: 2019, with Donald Trump in power Mike Pompeo, Secretary of announces that USA is ls leaving the Arms Control Treaty – the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. Only the New Start Treaty remains, due to expire soon . USA-Russia relations at a low point because of Ukraine, Russia withdraws from nuclear communications. Now other nations also have nuclear weapons, increasing the danger of confrontation, not co-operation, and of nuclear war.

************************

The Soviets were always insecure about American power. Americans also afraid of Soviet might. So Kruschev exaggerated Soviet nuclear weapons, to impress Americans. So USA in 1956 devised U2 spy plane. 1957 – Soviets develop Sputnik satellite- a space win, increasing USA’s fear. CIA satellite spying showed Soviet nuclear weapons much fewer. Daniel Ellsberg (Rand Corporation analyst 1959- 64) shows that Soviets were not trying for a first strike capability, not trying to dominate the world militarily. That discovery should have led to a change in USA thinking.

But it didn’t. USA propaganda continued, with the fraudulent belief that Russia ‘s foreign policy was world domination

Why has this totally fraudulent belief persisted all this time? Because there are jobs in it, and it’s very profitable. So many companies – Boeing, Lockheed, IBM, Martin and more become reliant on the government and the defense industry, becoming “a nuclear-headed hydra”. It changed universities, with 75% of natural science funding coming from defense industries. Society becomes oriented around defense, security and nuclear weapons. Exponential increase in the number and diversity of weapons, with an unlimited budget. (Good visuals of many types of nuclear weapons) By 1961 23000 nuclear weapons, most of them thermonuclear- a thousand times more powerful than the one dropped on Nagasaki. Eisenhower finally realised what a threat that this permanent armaments industry was to democracy – and warned against the “military-industrial-complex”. So many congressmen were reliant on the armaments jobs in their district. Armaments were seen as good business by Republicans and Democrats.

Presidents Richard Nixon and then John Kennedy push for the weapons industry aiming to race the Soviets, beat the so-called “missile gap”. Confrontation increasing, between Kruschev and Kennedy, (told by Kruschev’s great-granddaughter). Focus on Berlin, – graphic coverage of the Wall going up, the guards, the repression, the “death strips” .

Meanwhile American missiles set up in Europe, aimed at Russia., in Turkey aimed at the Kremlin. So Soviets tried to set up a threat to USA in Cuba’s communist regime. A CIA-led insurgency there had failed, (told by veterans) .

Pressure on Kennedy to invade Cuba, but he was reluctant. Castro urged Kruschev to attack USA, but Kruschev was reluctant. Tortuous secret diplomacy. Privately both Kennedy and Kruschev wanted no nuclear war. But they were not really in control, and they publicly threatened with nuclear weapons. This crisis led to the PARTIAL NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY putting nuclear testing underground.

1963: Kennedy assassinated, 1964 – Kruschev deposed. Brezhnev took over, aiming to be ahead in nuclear missiles. Both USA and Soviet union raced for nuclear missile superiority, but aiming to never use these weapons – use would be a mutual suicide pact. They developed the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Use of thousands of these weapons within 30 minutes – would kill of the entire earth, cut out sunlight and plant growth, and coat the earth with radioactive fallout.

So – the battles between the Soviets and the USA were proxy battles in other countries, intervening in other countries ‘ civil wars – Nicaragua, Angola, North Yemen, Domenica, Bangladesh, East Timor, Mozambique. Congo, (brutish visuals) . In Vietnam China and Russia supported the North Vietnamese, while many Asian allies supported USA. USA used Latin American countries to mobilise the Cold War. In Chile USA orchestrated the overthrow of President Allende, and the takeover by fascist Augusto Pinochet. U.S. intervention left a chaotic rule in Guatemala , an authoritarian rule in Iran. Far from spreading democracy, USA “got into bed with anyone who called themselves anti-communist“.

1969 President Richard Nixon- publicly blustered about the evils of Soviet communism, but in reality, talked with the Soviets about negotiation, introducing “detente”. The Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT 1) 1n 1972, the first agreement to limit intercontinental ballistic missiles. The U.S. Anti Ballistic Missile System. But the number of warheads was increasing in both USA and Russia – to a total of 70.000 nuclear weapons. A movement in USA to not trust the Soviets will culminate in the 19080s with President Ronal Reagan. Still, Reagan’s hatred of nuclear weapons brought him and Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev together.

June 1, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Do young people support nuclear power?

Jim Green 31 May 24

Earlier this year the Murdoch-Coalition echo-chamber was excited about younger poll respondents in a February Newspoll survey ‒ 65 percent support and 32 percent opposition among 18 to 34-year-olds to this survey question: ‘There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?’

However the Newspoll survey was a crude example of push-polling as discussed by polling experts Kevin Bonham and Murray Goot and by economist Professor John Quiggin. The question was loaded, the response options were mischievous (excluding a “neither approve nor disapprove” option, without which majority support (across all age groups) almost certainly would not have been achieved), and the Murdoch/Sky reporting on the poll was biased and dishonest.

Moreover, as Murray Goot notes, other polls reach different conclusions:

“But eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds as the age group most favourably disposed to nuclear power is not what Essential shows, not what Savanta shows, and not what RedBridge shows.

“In October’s Essential poll, no more than 46 per cent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-four supported “nuclear power plants” — the same proportion as those aged thirty-six to fifty-four but a smaller proportion than those aged fifty-five-plus (56 per cent); the proportion of “strong” supporters was actually lower among those aged eighteen to thirty-four than in either of the other age-groups.

“In the Savanta survey, those aged eighteen to thirty-four were the least likely to favour nuclear energy; only about 36 per cent were in favour, strongly or otherwise, not much more than half the number that Newspoll reported.

“And according to a report of the polling conducted in February by RedBridge, sourced to Tony Barry, a partner and former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, “[w]here there is support” for nuclear power “it is among only those who already vote Liberal or who are older than 65”.”

June 1, 2024 Posted by | politics | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Truly the stuff of nightmares”: unprecedented low in Antarctic sea ice recorded

By Jeremy Smith, May 31, 2024,  https://johnmenadue.com/truly-the-stuff-of-nightmares-unprecedented-low-in-antarctic-sea-ice-recorded/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0LBw8Xpve2S05Os1FH_y7RYvvv8tqj0qhXrhsM-Z3e49hH1Uu2E44lQr4_aem_AbLMAUeHwooBl6H86wLEqHTtPllDKldX5fzB5e2_5LYTTkXQuf4y_brUHNORL5PsxpdKGuD227S1VVLTWCOjJj7N

Each winter the surface of the sea freezes around Antarctica, over a vast area, mostly to a depth of about one metre. But this is starting to change. Last year, the sea ice reached an unprecedentedly low maximum extent of only 17 million square kilometres.

Why aren’t we talking about sea ice? Perhaps it’s because most people haven’t even heard of it, which is a shame because it’s important.

Each winter the surface of the sea freezes around Antarctica, over a vast area, mostly to a depth of about one metre. The continent effectively doubles in size, with 18-20 million square kilometres being covered by floating ice. That’s an area 2.5 times that of Australia; 4% of Earth’s surface.

But this is starting to change. Last year, the sea ice reached an unprecedentedly low maximum extent of only 17 million square kilometres. Although this year looks like being a little less extreme, a clear and concerning trend appears to be under way. This is emphasised in the ice minimum values in late summer. By February each year the sea ice extent shrinks typically to about three million square kilometres (mostly in two large embayments, the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea), but through most of the present decade it has dwindled to below two million.

Why does this matter? Well for a start, it is the underside of this huge area of sea ice where algae live and multiply, which feed the shrimp-like krill that in turn sustains an entire ecosystem: fish, seals, penguins, whales, the lot. The upper surface of sea ice is also crucially important. Its albedo, or reflectivity, means that 80-90% of the incoming summer sunshine is bounced back into space. Replace the ice with dark ocean and only about 9% is reflected, the rest going to warm the water. So the loss of sea ice is not only a symptom of climate change, it also contributes to it, in a feedback loop that might accelerate.

There’s more. When sea water freezes, the developing ice crystals comprise nearly pure water. Most of the salt is extruded as a heavy brine, and this cold, dense water sinks, becoming the Antarctic Bottom Current. This circulates around the Southern Ocean before spinning off into the other major ocean basins. As this deep cold flow moves north it displaces warmer water which then up-wells and forms the main surface currents. Without the annual ‘push’ of the Antarctic Bottom Current, these warmer currents might slow and cease.

The global ocean is so vast that it changes very slowly. We are only now beginning to see the results of the ocean’s absorbance of a century of industrial environmental heating, in the form of anomalously warm seas particularly this year. Any pronounced weakening of the ocean circulation due to sea ice loss will be slow – but inexorable.

The results, which are probably not going to happen in our own lifetimes but could well become part of our legacy to future generations, are likely to be dire. It could eventually mean goodbye to the Gulf Stream and the other currents which maintain benign climates on the European Atlantic coast, around Japan, and elsewhere in the northern hemisphere.

The possible consequences of such climate change for human societies are truly the stuff of nightmares. 

June 1, 2024 Posted by | climate change - global warming | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. Jobs jobs jobs in the nuclear industry – but is it true?

Go to Google news for nuclear information, and you’ll be swamped with glowing stories from the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA, and the big corporate media outlets – all about the wonderful future for the nuclear industry- –

all those jobs! including in the lovely nuclear weapons industry.

Jobs in renewable energy. This year’s report finds that renewable energy employment worldwide has continued to expand – to an estimated 13.7 million direct and indirect jobs in 2022. We can expect the creation of many millions of additional jobs in the coming years and decades.  https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_energy_and_jobs_2023.pdf?rev=4f65518fb5f64c9fb78f6f60fe821bf2

Jobs in nuclear power. I have not been able to find any kind of authoritative report on global jobs in nuclear power. I did find one source (on Quora) stating that each nuclear reactor in construction provides 1400-1800 jobs, and in operation 400 -700 jobs. The nuclear industry claims many more, but for construction, we must remember – this is all in the rather distant future.

The figure below is a prediction from many years ago. If we are to believe the nuclear lobby, this prediction should change rapidly.

What we do know is that at present, renewable energy jobs are increasing exponentially, and nuclear power building is almost at a standstill.

The figure on the left is also from many years ago. But I doubt that much has changed.

Of course – this is all about the actual reactors. There are many jobs in uranium mining, milling, transport etc, and of course, in nuclear weapons-making

The quality of jobs.

In energy efficiency there are many interesting and clean jobs. Also, workers know that they are contributing to a healthier planet – something to be proud of.

In renewable energy the jobs are relatively clean and healthy, and there’s again, the knowledge of being in an alternative to the polluting industries – coal and nuclear.

In nuclear energy and nuclear fuel, the workers are involved in the risky area of ionising radiation. There’s a huge amount of documentation on this. It is NOT a healthy job, though I suppose that it’s better to be a highly paid nuclear executive or lobbyist, safe in a nice office.

I doubt that nuclear workers can get much satisfaction about “helping the planet”, as the “peaceful” nuclear industry is so dirty, dangerous, and intimately connected with nuclear weapons.

No doubt some nuclear workers get paid a lot more that renewable energy workers do. But, there’s real value in knowing that your contribution to society is a clean and positive one.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inside the nuclear influence machine

Documents unearthed by The Fifth Estate lay bare how funding for the strategy, now in motion, is coordinated by a coal mining leader from Queensland, working with possibly Australia’s most  influential conservative think tank, and also a key member of Australia’s unofficial nuclear club.

Is the push for nuclear power in Australia more stalking horse for coal than a genuine alternative for a clean energy future? Here’s how the nuclear cabal is working its pitch

THE FIFTH ESTATE, MURRAY HOGARTH, 29 May 24

There’s a sophisticated, well funded strategy underway to prolong coal and gas and eventually take Australia down the nuclear road.

Documents unearthed by The Fifth Estate lay bare how funding for the strategy, now in motion, is coordinated by a coal mining leader from Queensland, working with possibly Australia’s most  influential conservative think tank, and also a key member of Australia’s unofficial nuclear club.

For this to work, the Liberal-National coalition needs to win back political power at the next federal election due by May next year.

  • A key conservative think tank aims to keep coal until nuclear power arrives 
  • Its energy security argument is echoed by Peter Dutton as coalition policy
  • A Queensland coal baron mustered donors to fund this influence machine

As things stand, nuclear power is currently prohibited in Australia, and the Labor government is committed to fast-tracking a renewables-led energy transition and says it has no plans to lift the ban.

Canberra retreat

The documents we’ve obtained and refer to in this article are the script and slides from a revealing energy security project update to a private strategy retreat held in Canberra last year on 12 May 2023 by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Behind the current campaign to bring nuclear energy to Australia is a deliberate agenda to prolong coal generation and disrupt the renewables rollout

The Fifth Estate contacted the speaker and two other key IPA-connected figures identified in this story for comment on Monday 27 May, inviting on-the-record interviews and providing questions. On Tuesday evening 28 May, the IPA chief executive officer Scott Hargreaves responded by email but declined to be interviewed. Full details of that response and related information are included at the end of this article.

The Melbourne based IPA is known as Australia’s leading conservative think tank, a key influencer of Coalition policies, and breeding ground for conservative politicians.

It habitually loads speaking point bullets for coalition politicians to fire. And it looked like Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did just that when he delivered his headland nuclear policy speech at an IPA public event, just two months after the Canberra retreat on 7 July last year.

In 2023, the IPA threw an arm around one of the favourite sons of the nuclear club, University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson, making him a Visiting Fellow, as part of a big new donor-funded influence project, running over three years.

A key and recurring focus of this project and subsequent related policy talking points is energy security.

The internal IPA documents, authored by Wilson, lay out what many people suspect and have alleged: that behind the current campaign to bring nuclear energy to Australia is a deliberate agenda to prolong coal generation and disrupt the renewables rollout.

The final commentary and slide in Wilson’s presentation show an IPA-orchestrated master plan for Australia to defend and preserve coal and gas in the 2020s; then build “mini and small modular reactor (SMR)” nuclear plants in the 2030s under the mantle of reaping energy security, environmental and low-cost rewards in the 2040s.

It’s a parallel universe to the view a vast number of people have of Australia’s energy future. And it’s totally at odds with the clean energy transition agenda and the federal government’s targets of  43 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reductions below 2005 levels and 82 per cent renewables by 2030.

Threat to climate targets

It’s also likely to breach Australia’s staged progress, with five yearly sub targets (for example 43 per cent by 2030, with 2035 targets due to be announced early next year, with a range of 65-75 per cent being evaluated by the Climate Change Authority), towards its bipartisan commitment to 100 per cent net zero by 2050, which was made by the former Morrison coalition government ahead of the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow in the UK in 2021.

The IPA, however, is no fan of UN processes, and as Wilson made clear in his project update notes for the IPA insiders, the aim of its strategy was definitely not to prolong a Labor government……………………………..

The coal connection

Wilson also identified in the presentation who was pulling together the funding for his IPA project, with a bit of ideological explanation to set the scene:…………………………………………………………………….

Bring on Peter Dutton

The private IPA retreat in Canberra on 12 May last year was followed less than two months later by Dutton’s major speech to launch the coalition’s new energy security themed nuclear policy. This was delivered at a public IPA event in Sydney on 7 July.

Dutton’s speech mirrors the theme

Dutton’s headland nuclear speech substantially mirrored the energy security theme and language from the IPA retreat. And it also picked up on themes from earlier “nuclear club”events and activities, a number of them involving Stephen Wilson. If Australia’s nuclear club has anyone it would like to make its intellectual rock star, it’s Wilson. 

Dutton’s IPA speech directly referenced Wilson, most significantly:

Professor Wilson says that we must stop procrastinating and prepare real options to deploy nuclear energy in case we need them. Countries are queuing up to put in their orders. Australia could have SMRs [small modular reactors] installed within a decade.

Wilson also confirmed his presentation to the IPA retreat in the video of another IPA event earlier this year, its 2024 Generation Liberty IPA Academy aimed at young conservatives, and relayed how Dutton had quoted him on a couple of occasions, expressing some surprise, saying, “I didn’t know he was going to do that.” (Dutton’s 7 July speech also quoted three other nuclear club regulars, as well as Wilson.)

Since then, SMRs have been a disappointment. Very inconveniently for Dutton and Wilson, the US showcase for new and thus far commercially-unproven SMR-design nuclear power stations, the NuScale project in Idaho, was cancelled in November last year due to cost overruns and lack of electricity buyer interest.

NuScale’s chief executive officer was reported as saying: “Once you’re on a dead horse, you dismount quickly. That’s where we are here.”

On message for energy security

However insecure the NuScale experience sounds, it’s worth remembering that the core theme of Wilson’s earlier 12 May IPA presentation, based on the notes and slides, was energy security. That was also a central theme of Dutton’s 7 July IPA speech:………………………………………………………………

The future of the nation and Western civilisation as we know it

On a geo-political note, national security was weighing heavily on Wilson’s mind on 12 May, as it did for Dutton on 7 July. According to Wilson’s speaking notes, at stake was nothing less than the future of the nation and Western civilisation as we know it:…………………………………………………………………..

Nuclear club bona fides

To be clear, this is the same Stephen Wilson who joined Queensland Liberal MP Ted O’Brien, Dutton’s Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and other nuclear club players, on a so-called “due diligence” study tour to the US and Canada in January-February 2023.

As Wilson’s slide deck for the IPA Canberra Retreat showed, the study tour group visited major nuclear industry companies, government representatives, lobbyists and campaign organisations. (Ted and friends’ excellent nuclear adventure in North America will feature in other upcoming articles in The Nuclear Files.)

By his own account, judging by a number of publicly available videos, Wilson imbibed deeply in the North American nuclear sector Kool-Aid, riffing off a theme he picked up on the US study tour, to proclaim that: energy security IS national security.

That became the inspiration for a key paper he published with the IPA on 1 November 2023, titled Energy security is national security. Its 1 November 2023 launch, in London on the perimeters of a global gathering of about 1500 ultra-conservatives, is another story coming soon from The Nuclear Files.

The Fifth Estate’s questions to key players in this story

The Fifth Estate provided these questions to IPA CEO Scott Hargreaves early on Monday afternoon:………………………………………………………………………………

The nuclear story, then and now, in brief

Nuclear power has been considered for Australia numerous times over the past nearly 70 years, from the 1950s, but has never happened, mainly for economic reasons. Historically because of the low cost and wide availability of coal, and now it is the low cost of renewables. This month the 2024 CSIRO GenCost report found that traditionally designed large scale nuclear power stations would cost at least 50 per cent more than solar and wind backed by batteries, and take at least 15+ years to develop, and more technically-advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could be four to six  times more expensive than renewables.

On ABC Radio Sydney on Wednesday morning, 29 May, Opposition nuclear frontman Ted O’Brien was pressed on the timing for release of the coalition’s highly anticipated nuclear policy, and insisted it would be revealed “in due course”. He confirmed that the coalition wanted to replace coal-fired power stations, as they exit the electricity grid, with nuclear ones, and that gas generation would fill any gap (which could be one to two decades) between coal shutting down and nuclear starting up.  https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/inside-the-nuclear-influence-machine/

May 30, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

CSIRO stands by nuclear power costings that contradict Coalition claims

The Coalition has attacked the GenCost report that found nuclear power plants would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind

Graham Readfearn, 29 May 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/29/csiro-nuclear-power-plant-australia-cost-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition

The CSIRO says it stands by its analysis on the costs of future nuclear power plants in Australia after the Coalition attacked the work, which contradicted its claims reactors would provide cheap electricity and be available within a decade.

The opposition’s energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, claimed on Tuesday in the Australian newspaper that the CSIRO should re-run its modelling to account for longer life-spans and running times of nuclear generators in other countries with nuclear programs.

Last week the CSIRO released its GenCost report on the costs of different generation technologies, saying nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind and would not be available any sooner than 2040.

The Coalition has yet to reveal any detail on its nuclear plan, including what type of reactors it would build, how large they would be and where they would put them.

A CSIRO spokesperson told Guardian Australia: “CSIRO provides impartial and independent advice and does not undertake modelling for specific policy directions.

“While we stand by the data provided, any alternative scenarios assessed by others would not carry CSIRO’s endorsement.”

O’Brien pointed to an assumption used in the GenCost report that nuclear plants would have a “capacity factor” – how often they are generating electricity relative to their maximum capacity – of between 53% and 89%.

O’Brien wanted the CSIRO to use a higher figure of 92.7% for nuclear based on the performance of plants in the US.

But the GenCost report discusses the reasons for setting capacity factors, saying new baseload generators such as nuclear “are expected to struggle to present the lowest cost bids to the dispatch market” and would, therefore, likely be generating less often.

O’Brien also wanted the CSIRO to model the full lifespan of nuclear plants – which could be as long as 80 years – and to add a start date of 2035 to its modelling.

The report provides cost estimates for power from different generation technologies, including both large and small reactors, for the years 2023, 2030 and 2040.

The CSIRO spokesperson said: “Specific issues in regard to economic life of generation assets and capacity utilisation, including large scale nuclear, have been assessed by the GenCost team as part of the consultation process for the 2023-24 report.”

Australia has never built a nuclear reactor for electricity and the technology has been banned since 1998.

The CSIRO report said if a decision was made in 2025 to adopt nuclear power, it would be at least 15 years until a reactor was producing power.

The report said: “Nuclear technologies need to undergo more extensive safety and security permitting, nuclear prohibitions need to be removed at the state and commonwealth level and the safety authorities need to be established.”

The report estimated if Australia could establish a nuclear industry, then a 1,000MW plant would cost $8.6bn, but the first reactors could cost double that amount – more than $17bn.

The report said: “Given the lack of a development pipeline and the additional legal and safety and security steps required, the first nuclear plant in Australia will be significantly delayed. Subsequent nuclear plant could be built more quickly as part of a pipeline of plants.”

May 30, 2024 Posted by | business | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »