Dutton’s blast of radioactive rhetoric on nuclear power leaves facts in the dust
Graham Readfearn, Guardian, 14 Mar 24
Coalition’s claim of cheap power and quickly built reactors is at odds with real world experience of other countries.
We may not yet be entering a nuclear age in Australia, but we would all be best advised to handle the rhetoric around the issue as carefully as we would radioactive waste.
This week opposition leader Peter Dutton said an annual CSIRO report that had included estimates of costs for small modular reactors – which are not yet available commercially – was “discredited” because it “doesn’t take into account some of the transmission costs, the costs around subsidies for the renewables”.
Dutton is referring to a report known as GenCost, which calculates the cost of generating electricity from different technologies when fuel, labour and capital are included. This metric is known as the levelised cost of electricity.
Despite Dutton’s claim, the most recent GenCost report does include the cost of integrating renewables such as solar and wind into the electricity grid. That is, it includes the cost of building new transmission lines and energy storage such as batteries.
The most recent GenCost report estimates a theoretical small modular reactor built in 2030 would cost $382 to $636 per megawatt hour. It says this is much more expensive than solar and wind, which it puts at between $91 and $130 per MWh even once integration costs are included.
The calculations in GenCost don’t include subsidies for any generating technologies – including renewables or future SMRs.
The cost estimates for SMRs are challenging because no commercial plant has been built. But the closest a project has got to existing – the Carbon-Free Power Project in Utah – was cancelled late last year primarily because the cost of the power would have been too high. And that project was given more than $2bn from the US Department of Energy.
Mycle Schneider is an independent nuclear expert and coordinator of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status report that tracks nuclear power development around the globe. He points to research from US financial group Lazard that says in the US, the costs of unsubsidised solar and wind including firming costs, such as batteries, range from US$45 to $141 per MWh compared to new-build nuclear at US$180 per MWh.
Ramping up the nuclear rhetoric
On Tuesday, Dutton said he would soon reveal six potential sites for nuclear reactors around Australia – likely to be close to, current or retiring coal-fired power stations.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien claimed this week Australia could have nuclear power “up and running” within a decade.
“Nuclear ‘up and running within a decade’ does not fit with the experience we have seen elsewhere,” said Prof MV Ramana, a nuclear expert at the University of British Columbia and a contributor to the nuclear industry status reports.
Ramana points to Finland that has operated reactors since the 1970s, where parliament voted in 2002 to add a fifth reactor to the country’s fleet. Work started in 2005 but the reactor didn’t connect until 2022 “almost exactly 20 years after the parliamentary vote,” he said.
“We can see similar long periods of time between decisions to build reactors and when they start operating, again in countries that already have nuclear plants, in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.”
Dutton and O’Brien have both said there are 30 economies around the world using nuclear and “50 more” that want to.
But Schneider says there are actually 32 countries with nuclear reactors, “but the top five generators produced 72% of the nuclear electricity in the world.”
“Over the past 30 years, only four countries started nuclear programs (Romania, Iran, Belarus, UAE) and three phased out their programs (Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Germany). There are reactors under construction in three more newcomer countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkiye). Most other ‘plans’ are vague.”
The UAE – a model case study?
On Sky News, O’Brien pointed to the United Arab Emirates as a country that had commissioned South Korea’s Kepco to build four reactors of the size that could be considered for Australia in less than a decade.
In fact, each of the 1.4GW UAE plants was expected to be delivered in five years, but took eight, according to the industry status report. And it took 12 years from the announcement of the plan in 2008, to the first unit coming online in 2020.
The problem with using the UAE as a case study is that it is not a democracy, but an autocracy.
“The UAE is not a good model for Australia,” Ramana said………………………………………..
Reactor reactions
Experts have told the Guardian that even if Australia were to remove its federal and state bans on nuclear energy, it would be unlikely to see reactors generating power until the 2040s – at which point most, if not all, of Australia’s coal-fired power will have been turned off years earlier. One nuclear advocate questioned whether Australia could actually find a company to build reactors.
This week one political journalist said on Sky that “Canada is about to put in small modular reactors” and had selected a site in Ontario.
While Ontario Public Generation does plan to build a fleet of four small modular reactors, the company doesn’t yet have a licence to construct them.
If it does go ahead, OPG has said it doesn’t expect the first-of-its-kind unit – each about one-tenth the size of Australia’s biggest coal-fired power plant – to be working commercially until the end of 2029.
Expertise needed to make giant leap
O’Brien and Dutton have rejected the notion that Australia would be “starting from scratch” on nuclear, citing the existence of the tiny reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney, the country’s existing reserves of uranium and the agreement to buy nuclear-powered submarines in the future.
Glenne Drover, the secretary of the Victorian branch of the Australian Institute of Energy and a broad supporter of nuclear power, said it was “quite a step up” from the 20MW Lucas Heights research reactor “to 1,000MW+ and to build, own and operate a pressure reactor”………………………more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/14/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-comments-csiro-small-modular-reactors
Surf Coast federal member rejects nuclear reactor in region
March 14, 2024 BY Angus Smith, Surf Coast Times,
CORANGAMITE Labor federal member Libby Coker has slammed suggestions a nuclear power station could be built in her electorate.
Since September last year, the Coalition has been promoting former coal-fired power station sites, such as Anglesea and the Latrobe Valley, as ideal locations for nuclear power, and will soon launch an energy policy with sites for six nuclear power stations.
Speaking on Sunrise last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton highlighted the potential of such sites…………………………………
Critics, including environmental and community groups, say nuclear power stations are very expensive, other alternatives are better, and adopting the technology could bring Australia into the global nuclear waste market, with other countries potentially sending their waste here.
Ms Coker demanded clarity on the proposed location of a nuclear reactor and its waste disposal in the Geelong area.
“Peter Dutton and the Liberals must tell us exactly where on the Surf Coast they’re planning to build this nuclear reactor and put its waste,” she said.
“Anyone who has done their homework knows nuclear is not viable.
“The alleged boom in Small Modular Reactors is a furphy.
“Renewables will bring down emissions so much faster and without the radioactive waste.”
Greens Member for Western Victoria Sarah Mansfield said the government should be focused on ensuring Australia was better placed to prevent and respond to climate disasters in the future.
“Nuclear is just a distraction being put forward by those who fundamentally don’t support renewable energy – the time and cost alone mean that nuclear isn’t a viable option.” https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/surfcoasttimes/news/coker-rejects-nuclear-reactor-in-region/
Dead in the Water- The AUKUS Delusion
Australian Foreign Affairs – February 2024
The latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs examines Australia’s momentous decision to form a security pact with the United States and the United Kingdom that includes an ambitious, expensive and risky plan to acquire nuclear-power submarines – a move that will have far-reaching military and strategic consequences.
Dead in the Water looks at whether the AUKUS deal will enhance or undermine Australia’s security as tensions between China and the US rise, at the impact on Australia’s ties with its regional neighbours, and at whether the submarines plan is likely to ever be achieved….. more https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com/
Observing the 45th Anniversary of the Worst U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Accident
March 13th, 2024, https://nuclearactive.org/
Thursday, March 28th marks the 45th anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania. A new documentary, “RADIOACTIVE: The Women of Three Mile Island,” tells the harrowing story of the 1979 accident involving the release of radioactive and toxic materials into the air, soils, water and into bodies young and old. As official evacuation orders were delayed, people received much larger radioactive doses than if the evacuation orders were issued immediately.
Forty-five years later four women continue to challenge what the company and government say about the accident.
One review explained how the documentary “uncovers the never-before-told stories of four intrepid homemakers who take their local community’s case against the plant operator all the way to the [U.S.] Supreme Court –- and a young female journalist who’s caught in the radioactive crossfire.”
It also breaks the story of a “radical new health study that may finally expose the truth of the meltdown. For over forty years, the nuclear industry has done everything in their power to cover up their criminal actions, claiming, as they always do, ‘No one was harmed and nothing significant happened.’”
The director of the outstanding documentary is Heidi Hutner. She is a professor of Literature, Sustainability, Women’s and Gender Studies at Stony Brook University New York, and a scholar of nuclear and environmental history, literature, film, and ecofeminism. Hutner chaired the Sustainability Studies Program for six years.
Beginning on March 12th, the documentary is being streamed on Apple + and Amazon Prime for $3.99. Search for The Women of Three Mile Island.
After you watch the film, be sure to register for the historic webinar coming up on Thursday, March 28th at 6 pm Mountain Time with the director Heidi Hutner and her team: Anna Rondon, who is Diné and founder of the New Mexico Social Justice and Equity Institute; Krystal Curley, who is Diné and director of Indigenous Life Ways; Mary Olson, founder of the Gender and Radiation Impact Project; and Professor Mark Jacobson, Stanford University. Cindy Folkers, of Beyond Nuclear, will moderate. The Sierra Club and Beyond Nuclear host the webinar.
In March and April, seven in-person screenings will be held in the U.S. and Canada. CCNS saw the film last weekend at the International Uranium Film Festival in Window Rock, Arizona. It received the Best Investigation Documentary award. We highly recommend watching this story about how the nuclear industry operates and covers up the truth.
EVENTS:……………………………………………….
Australia’s biggest smelter to launch massive wind and solar tender, says nuclear too costly
Giles Parkinson, Renew Economy, Mar 13, 2024
A massive tender for wind and solar projects is to be launched next week to help repower Australia’s biggest aluminium smelter Tomago, near Newcastle, with its majority owner saying nuclear is out of the question because it is too slow and too expensive.
The tender will be a landmark event for the Australian renewable energy transition, because the Tomalgo smelter – with annual demand of more than 8 terawatt hours, is the biggest single energy consumer in the country.
Majority owner Rio Tinto this year has already announced two record-breaking contracts for wind and solar farms in Australia to provide power for its Boyne Island smelter in Gladstone, Queensland, and its two alumina refineries in the same port city.
Those contracts included one for the first gigawatt scale solar project in Australia, the 1.1 GW Upper Calliope solar project in central Queensland, and the 1.4 GW Bungapan wind project to be developed by iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest’s majority owned Windlab.
In an interview on Renew Economy’s popular and weekly Energy Insiders podcast this week, the head of Pacific Repowering in Rio Tinto’s energy and climate division, Vik Selvaraja, says the first steps towards a new tender will be launched next week.
“Next week, we’re launching an RFP (request for proposals) for Tomago,” Selvaraja told the podcast.
“And we are very, very keen to go down a very similar process of assessing what projects exist in New South Wales that we can partner with to bring to the market.”………………………………..
The switch from fossil fuels to renewables for the country’s biggest consumers of energy makes a nonsense of the claims that such facilities can only prosper on so-called “base-load” power, a claim the federal Coalition uses to justify its plans to extend the life of coal fired generators and replace them with nuclear.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has been claiming that while nuclear is expensive to build, it is somehow cheap to consume. But that too is a nonsense claim, and only made possible in some countries by government ownership and massive subsidies.
Asked about the nuclear option, Selvaraja said: “As far as we can see … all validated and independent data that exists on costs say that it (nuclear) is a very expensive source of energy. And I think in Australia, certainly, we’ve got low cost wind and solar, and we were going to run with that.”
Rio Tinto, it should be noted, was once one of the major producers of uranium, but no more following the closure of the Ranger mine in the NT, owned by Energy Resources of Australia.
You can listen to the full interview with Selvaraja here, along with our weekly commentary of all things energy. You can find past episodes of the Energy Insiders and other RenewEconomy podcasts here. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-biggest-smelter-to-launch-massive-wind-and-solar-tender-says-nuclear-too-costly/
TODAY. Julian Assange, atrocities, nuclear war, AI, “Oppenheimer”, and the whole damn thing.
Julian Assange languishes in his solitary confinement cell for 23 hours a day in a British dungeon. He awaits the decision of the High Court on whether to let him appeal against extradition to the USA., for trial on the trumped up charges of espionage. Doesn’t really matter – even if he wins this one- then his appeal won’t be heard for months. Either way, the USA is killing this man – dragging out the whole abusive process.
It’s an atrocity against an individual. But the, the USA, especially under the Biden administration, (and I’m sure, under a Trump one) – is cool with atrocities.
Indeed – that’s why they’re persecuting Assange – because he exposed the USA’s military atrocities to the world. That is investigative journalism. The USA MUST kill Assange (probably slowly and “respectably”) so that the world will accept that no-one is to call the USA to account for military atrocities.
It’s almost comic – right now the USA is sending aid to starving Gazans with one hand, and with the other hand, sending to Israel weapons and money for the mass killing of Gazans.
America is participating in this atrocity –
and doing the profitable business that it loves most – selling killing machines to the world. I was fascinated to find the USA Naval Institute enthusiastically welcome a new murder toy a “transnational coalition kill chain”, for war against China.
America’s military-industrial-nuclear-complex is ecstatic with this system, already used , in the Navy’s own word in the “kill chain architecture leveraged against Russia”. Now they’re selling it to Taiwan – Link 16 – a system for kinetic warfare which will allow the Taiwan/ROC military to integrate and coordinate all its warfighting platforms with US, NATO, Japanese, Korean, Australian militaries in combined arms warfare. – sea, air, and land forces linked for lethal effect. All to be linked with low-earth orbit satellites and other Space Force assets. Taiwan can lead a multinational war offensive against China.
This war could involve a nuclear first strike. “The United States should consider nuclear first use if conventional forces cannot stop a Chinese invasion force from reaching Taiwan.“
If we’re talking about atrocities, I think that for the USA to make a nuclear strike on China – would be an atrocity. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell sees Ukraine as a “unified field” of war with China. He revels in the possibility of a “magnificent symphony of death” in Asia.
With Julian Assange dead – what journalist would dare investigate and expose these plans and events?
Now, what about AI? New military AI technology is being developed in the name of national security. “The U.S. has stated a very active interest in integrating AI across all warfighting functions,” said Benjamin Boudreaux, a policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. It’s a bit of a worry. Previous near-nuclear-attacks were prevented by the instinctive actions of individuals like Stanislav Petrov. Is AI going to be intelligent in that way?
The film “Oppenheimer” swept seven Academy Awards. Certainly a great film, but now being used by the nuclear lobby in this case The Nuclear Threat Initiative, to promote nuclear power, pretending that this industry has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. By the way, “Barbie’s $1.4 billion gross far exceeds Oppenheimer’s $950 million gross. But then “Barbie” was the story of Barbie finding the real world to be dominated by men (not perhaps the message to appeal to the men who run things like the Oscars, and just about everything else)
What do do about all this? Just let it all happen?
Well, there are millions of people who don’t want this insane militaristic system- so we all should be able stop the madness controlled by a relatively small phalanx world-wide. But how?
Cold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power
Jim Green, Mar 12, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/cold-turkeys-the-demise-of-nuclear-power-in-australias-aukus-partner-countries/
When announcing the AUKUS agreement in 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.” He also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
However, Coalition Senators argued in a report last year that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
So, let’s see how nuclear power is faring in our AUKUS partners, the UK and the US.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
The UK
The last power reactor start-up in the UK was 29 years ago — Sizewell B in 1995.
Over the past decade, several proposed new nuclear power plants have been abandoned (Moorside, Wylfa, Oldbury) and the only project to reach the construction stage is Hinkley Point C, comprising two French-designed EPR reactors.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.9 billion). When construction of two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point commenced in 2018 and 2019, the cost estimate for the two reactors was £19.6 billion.
The current cost estimate for the two reactors has ballooned to £46 billion (A$89 billion) or £23 billion (A$44.5 billion) per reactor. That is 11.5 times higher than the estimate in the late 2000s. Further cost overruns are certain. This is an example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point — primarily in the form of a guaranteed payment of £92.50 (A$180) per megawatt-hour (2012 prices), indexed for inflation, for 35 years — could amount to £30 billion (A$58 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94 billion).
Delays
The delays associated with Hinkley Point have been as shocking as the cost overruns. In 2007, French utility EDF boasted that Britons would be using electricity from an EPR reactor at Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017. In 2008, the UK government said the reactors would be complete “well before 2020”.
But construction of the two reactors didn’t even begin until 2018 and 2019, respectively, at which time completion was expected in 2026. Now, completion is expected in 2030 or 2031.
Undoubtedly there will be further delays and if the reactors are completed, it will be more than a quarter of a century after the 2007 EDF boast that Britons would finally be using electricity from Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys.
Construction will take well over 10 years; planning and construction over 25 years. Yet in Australia, the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
‘Something of a crisis’
Nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo said in 2017 that the UK’s nuclear power program faced “something of a crisis”. The following year, Toshiba abandoned the planned Moorside nuclear power project near Sellafield despite generous offers of government support — a “crushing blow” according to Yeo.
Then in 2019, Hitachi abandoned the planned Wylfa reactor project in Wales after the estimated cost of the twin-reactor project had risen by 50 percent.
Hitachi abandoned the project despite an offer from the UK government to take a one-third equity stake in the project; to consider providing all of the required debt financing; and to consider providing a guarantee of a generous minimum payment per unit of electricity.
Long gone was the 2006 assertion from then UK industry secretary Alistair Darling that the private sector would have to “initiate, fund, construct and operate” nuclear power plants.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities noted that Hitachi joined a growing list of companies and utilities backing out of the UK nuclear new-build program:
“Let’s not forget that Hitachi are not the first energy utility to come to the conclusion that new nuclear build in the UK is not a particularly viable prospect. The German utilities RWE Npower and E-on previously tried to develop the site before they sold it on Hitachi in order to protect their own vulnerable energy market share in the UK and Germany.
“British Gas owner Centrica pulled out of supporting Hinkley Point C, as did GDF Suez and Iberdrola at Moorside, before Toshiba almost collapsed after unwise new nuclear investments in the United States forced it to pull out of the Sellafield Moorside development just a couple of months ago.”
Sizewell C
The UK government hopes to progress the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, comprising two EPR reactors, and is once again offering very generous support including taking an equity stake in the project and using a ‘regulated asset base‘ model which foists financial risks onto taxpayers and could result in taxpayers paying billions for failed projects — as it has in the US.
If recent experience is any guide, the government will struggle to find corporations or utilities willing to invest in Sizewell regardless of generous government support.
(The same could be said for plans for small modular reactors or mid-sized reactors envisaged by Rolls-Royce — it is doubtful whether private finance can be secured despite generous taxpayer subsidies.)
Many reactors have been permanently shut down in the UK: the IAEA lists 36 such reactors. Since the Sizewell B reactor startup in 1995, there have been 24 permanent reactors shut-downs and zero startups.
Repeat: since the last reactor startup in the UK, there have been 24 shut-downs!
The capacity of the nine remaining reactors (5.9 gigawatts — GW) is less than half of the peak of 13 GW in the late 1990s. Nuclear power’s contribution to electricity supply has fallen from 22 percent in the early 2000s to 14.2 percent.
Meanwhile, the UK government reports that renewable power sources accounted for 44.5 percent of total UK generation in the third quarter of 2023, a higher share than fossil fuels and around three times more than nuclear’s share.
What to make of the conservative UK government’s goal of quadrupling nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050? It is deeply implausible. The facts speak for themselves. Two dozen reactor shutdowns and zero startups since 1995.
The Hinkley Point project has been extremely slow and extremely expensive. The Sizewell C project is uncertain. Other proposals — including proposals for small modular reactors — are even more uncertain and distant.
Unsurprisingly, the extraordinary cost overruns and delays associated with Hinkley Point have complicated plans to advance the proposed Sizewell C project.
In 2010, the UK government announced that Sizewell was one of the locations slated for new reactors. Fourteen years later, construction is some years away and it remains uncertain if the project will reach the construction stage. EDF and the UK government are seeking to raise a further £20 billion from new investors. All reasonable offers considered.
France
The Sizewell C project is equally complicated across the channel due to EDF’s massive debts and its plan to replace the EPR design with an EPR2 design, about which little is known except that safety will be sacrificed on the altar of economics. EDF’s debt as of early 2023 was €64.5 billion (A$107 billion) and it was fully nationalised later in 2023 due to its crushing debts.
In addition to its adventures across the channel, EDF has a “colossal maintenance and investment programme to fund” in France as the Financial Times noted in October 2021.
As in the UK, there has not been a single reactor startup in France since the last millennium. The only current reactor construction project is one EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville. The current cost estimate of €19.1 billion (A$31.6 billion) is nearly six times higher than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (A$5.5 billion).
Construction of the Flamanville reactor began in 2007 and it remains incomplete 17 years later. Planning plus construction have taken over a quarter of a century. Yet the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
France’s nuclear industry was in its “worst situation ever“, a former EDF director said in 2016 — and the situation has worsened since then. Another former EDF director said in early 2024 that the French nuclear industry is “on a slow descent to hell” and he has “fierce doubts about EDF’s ability to build more reactors.”
The US
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of around US$9 billion (A$13.6 billion). Construction began in 2013 and the project was abandoned in 2017.
The project was initially estimated to cost US$11.5 billion; when it was abandoned, the estimate was US$25 billion (A$38 billion).
Largely as a result of the V.C. Summer disaster, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and its parent company Toshiba only avoided bankruptcy by selling its most profitable assets. Both companies decided that they would no longer take on the huge risks associated with reactor construction projects. A year earlier, Westinghouse said its goal was to win overseas orders for at least 45 AP1000 reactors by 2030.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the V.C. Summer project are ongoing: the fiasco is known as the ‘nukegate’ scandal.
Vogtle
With the abandonment of the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, the only remaining reactor construction project in the US was the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors).
Construction of the Vogtle reactors began in 2013 and the expected completion dates of 2016 and 2017 were pushed back seven years to 2023 and 2024. In 2014, Westinghouse claimed a three-year construction schedule for AP1000 reactors but the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to complete.
The first licence application for the Vogtle project was submitted in 2006 so planning and construction took 17 years in addition to the time spent before the 2006 application.
The latest cost estimate for the Vogtle project is $34 billion (A$51 billion), more than twice the estimate when construction began (US$14–15.5 billion). The project only survived because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts.
In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion (A$2.1 billion) — 12 times lower than the latest Vogtle estimate of US$17 billion (A$25.5 billion) per reactor. Another example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
Corruption scandals
In 2005, the US Nuclear Energy Institute claimed that Westinghouse’s estimate of US$1,365 per kilowatt “has a solid analytical basis, has been peer-reviewed, and reflects a rigorous design, engineering and constructability assessment.”
In fact, the estimate was out by an order of magnitude and the Institute’s involvement in a raft of corruption scandals has been exposed. No doubt the Dutton Coalition would happily parrot whatever lies the Institute chose to feed them, and no doubt the Murdoch/Sky/AFR echo-chamber would happily amplify those lies.
During the ill-fated ‘nuclear renaissance’, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build 31 reactors, but only the Vogtle and V.C. Summer projects reached the construction stage and only the twin-reactor Vogtle project was completed. Two out of 31 ain’t bad. Well it is, actually.
Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down since 2013 with many more closures in the pipeline. The US has one of the oldest reactor fleets in the world with a mean age of 42.1 years. The mean age of the 29 reactors closed worldwide from 2018‒2022 was 43.5 years.
Around 20 unprofitable, ageing reactors have been saved by nuclear bailout funding but their future is precarious. In addition to the V.C. Summer corruption scandal, nuclear bailout programs are mired in corruption scandals (see here, here, here and here and if you’re still not convinced see here, here, and here).
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
Coalition will seek a social licence for nuclear: Dutton
AFR, Phillip Coorey, 12 Mar 24
Communities will be consulted and “incentivised” to adopt nuclear power, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says as he amplifies his case for the energy source to play a central role in Australia reducing its emissions.
Mr Dutton will also pledge to “ramp up” the domestic production of gas to help firm renewable energy, in his keynote speech to be delivered to The Australian Financial Review Business Summit on Tuesday.
He will also hint at an expansion of rooftop solar, as already flagged by Nationals leader David Littleproud, as an alternative to large-scale renewable energy projects and the thousands of kilometres of transmission infrastructure that those will require……………………….
In setting the scene for his nuclear announcement, Mr Dutton will outline three principles that will guide the policy.
“First and foremost, we want to get the highest yield of energy using the smallest amount of land,” he will say.
“We want to maximise the amount of energy we can obtain per square metre and minimise our environmental footprint.”
This will be achieved by putting reactors on or near the sites of old coal-fired power stations so they can use the existing transmission grid.
The second principle will involve seeking a “social licence” for the policy “by listening to and incentivising communities to adopt nuclear power”.
A third principle is that the Coalition will put people at the centre of our energy policy by making lower energy bills a key consideration.
Mr Dutton dared the government to lift the nuclear power moratorium and let the market decide.
‘Does not make sense’
But energy experts appearing at the Summit continued to cast doubt on the feasibility of the Coalition’s approach.
Carbon Market Institute chair Kerry Schott said she was technology neutral but nuclear “really does not make sense for Australia”.
“Nuclear by far, like daylight by far, [is] the most expensive,” she said.
“It really doesn’t make sense for Australia because we have so much renewable energy resources.”
She said firming wind and solar with hydro and “a little bit of gas” until hydrogen was commercially available was “by far the cheapest and easiest”.
She did, however, agree, that putting solar panels on every rooftop would alleviate the need for Labor’s thousands of kilometres of transmission infrastructure……………………………… https://www.afr.com/business-summit/coalition-will-seek-a-social-licence-for-nuclear-dutton-20240311-p5fbby
Dutton’s nuclear plan will require huge subsidies
AFR 12 Mar 24
So the two prongs of Peter Dutton’s energy plan are to adopt nuclear power and to ramp up production of gas? (“Coalition to seek ‘social licence’ for nuclear power,” March 11)
Well, we know which of the two prongs will actually happen, and it won’t be the nuclear one.
To go down the nuclear path would require massive government subsidies – not just in the construction phase, but over their entire life of the power stations.
This is what is happening in France, where nuclear supplies 70 per cent of the nation’s electricity, and in Ontario, where the figure is 59 per cent.
Otherwise, the government would have to set electricity prices at a level that would underwrite the power companies’ profitability – irrespective of whether those prices were competitive with other forms of energy.
Either way, nuclear is not viable in Australia – at least, not on economic grounds.
Ken Enderby, Concord, NSW
Coalition must consider nuclear cost
Peter Dutton’s nuclear ideas (“Coalition to seek ‘social licence’ for nuclear power,” March 11) fly in the face of evidence.
The cost to build, the huge subsidies, the intellectual capital required, the siting, the water use, the lead-up time for power generation, the cost to consumers, the decommissioning costs, the half-life of plutonium 239 – none of this will deter him. He will continue to juxtapose the idea of nuclear against the reality of renewables.
He and his party will continue to stymie, mock and disparage our transition efforts. The Coalition’s “all of the above” approach sounds open-minded but disguises the fact that “all” does not include the necessary all-out push for renewables.
Nuclear has no chance of getting us to where we need to be, either in terms of emissions or in developing our crucial renewables industries.
Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Victoria……………………. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-will-require-huge-subsidies-20240311-p5fbhj
Canada, Sweden Restore UNRWA Funds as Report Accuses Israel of Torturing Agency Staff
“The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated,” said Canadian lawmaker Salma Zahid. “It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
JON QUEALLY, Mar 09, 2024 https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/09/canada-sweden-restore-unrwa-funds-as-report-accuses-israel-of-torturing-agency-staff/
The governments of Canada and Sweden have announced they will resume funding for the United Nation’s agency that provides humanitarian aide and protection to Palestinians living in Gaza and elsewhere—a move that other powerful nations, including Israel’s most powerful ally the United States, continue to refuse.
Calling the lack of humanitarian relief inside Gaza “catastrophic,” Canadian Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussen said Friday his nation would restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to help address the “dire” situation on the ground living.
Sweden made its announcement Saturday and said a $20 million disbursement would be made to help UNRWA regain its financial footing.
The restoration of funds follows weeks of global criticism and protest for the decision by many Western nations to withhold UNRWA funds after Israel claimed, without presenting evidence, that a few members of the agency—the largest employer in the Gaza Strip—had participated in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7.
As a result, UNRWA has said it’s ability to provide aid and services to Gaza—where over 100,000 people have been killed or wounded in five months of constant bombardment and blockade by the Israeli military—has been pushed to the “breaking point” as malnutrition and starvation has been documented among the displaced population of over 2 million people.
“Canada is resuming its funding to UNRWA so more can be done to respond to the urgent needs of Palestinian civilians,” Hussen said. “Canada will continue to take the allegations against some of UNRWA’s staff extremely seriously and we will remain closely engaged with UNRWA and the UN to pursue accountability and reforms.”
“I welcome Canada lifting the pause on funding for UNWRA,” said Canadian MP Salma Zahid, a member of the Liberal party representing Scarborough Centre in the House of Commons. “The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated. It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
Earlier this week, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly the agency was “facing a deliberate and concerted campaign” by Israel “to undermine its operations, and ultimately end them.”
On Friday, Reutersreported on an internal UNRWA report that included testimony of employees who said they were tortured by Israeli officers while in detention to make false admissions about involvement in the October 7 attack.
U.S. Sells ‘Link 16’ Battlefield Communications System to Taiwan
22 February 2024
Taipei, February 22 (EFE).- The United States has approved the possible sale of an advanced military data link system upgrade to Taiwan, the first acquisition of this type following Taipei’s January election, the island’s government confirmed Thursday.
In a statement, Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it received formal notification from the US government about the possible sale of the Link-16 system to Taiwan for an estimated value of $75 million.
Link-16 is a standardized communications system used by the armed forces of the US and other countries to transmit and exchange real-time tactical data through the use of links between allied military network participants…………………………………….. https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2024-02-22/us-approves-possible-sale-of-advanced-military-data-link-system-to-taiwan/
This week in nuclear news
A vertical garden at Medellin’s City Hall.
Ralph Nader: Stop the Worsening Undercount of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza.
The horrors of nuclear weapons testing.
March 11 – reflecting on Fukushima.
********************************************
Climate. Climate change is warping the seasons. The world is not moving fast enough on climate change — social sciences can help explain why.Europe unprepared for rapidly growing climate risks, report finds.
Noel’s notes. The need for clear thinking on the Holocaust in Gaza. Oh for a bit of sanity and genuine leadership! Normalising the unthinkable – the 16th Annual Nuclear (so-called) Deterrence Summit.
AUSTRALIA.
- The Campaign to Free Assange: Reflections on ‘Night Falls’.
- Prime Minister of Australia, and Henchmen, Referred to International Criminal Court for Support of Gaza Genocide. Shock as Australian Prime Minister learns that he is not above international law.
- AUKUS: Are nuclear-powered submarines a good idea for Australia?
- Australia has had many significant inquiries into nuclear power, over the past 60 years.
- The Coalition wants nuclear power. Could it work – or would it be an economic and logistical disaster? Peter Dutton’s climate denial is morphing into a madcap nuclear fantasy. The ban should stay. Nuclear power: Peter Dutton changes gear in favour of big reactors not small modular ones. Peter Dutton’s nuclear implosion after Dunkley byelection loss. Tell him he’s dreaming’: Bowen rubbishes Coalition claim Australia could have nuclear power in a decade. Peter Dutton won’t back down on the Coalition’s desire to take its nuclear energy policy to the next election. Nuclear slow and expensive, renewables fast and cheap: Bowen slaps down Coalition “fantasy”. Dutton’s nuclear option would condemn us to pricey power and blackouts. Market has ‘made its decision’ about nuclear energy being too expensive. Coalition must come clean on how its nuclear vision would work.
- Coalition’s plan to go nuclear puts five regions on the table as favoured locations for nuclear reactors. MP says coalition ‘must’ explain plan for nuclear power near Anglesea on the Victorian Surf Coast. Top scientist explains nuclear process and risks: Sunshine Coast previously considered for facility. Talk of nuclear power plant sites ‘conjecture’, says Liberal MP amid internal division on Dutton’s policy. Western Australia’s Premier Cook goes nuclear on Dutton’s ‘simplistic, ridiculous’ power plan.
- Senior Western Australia Liberal calls for Australia to become nuclear weapons power.
- Australia nuclear facility installs massive rooftop solar system to save $2 million.
- Events. Peace! – No AUKUS, No War! Australia wide events and protest actions for Peace, end AUKUS, cancel nuclear submarines and mobilise against war 14 – 24 March
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| EMPLOYMENT. Fukushima fishers strive to recover catches amid water concerns. | ENVIRONMENT. Hinkley Point Responds to Environmental Concerns Over Bristol Channel Eel Populations. | ETHICS and RELIGION. Aiding Those We Kill: US Humanitarianism in Gaza. The West has set itself on a path of collective suicide — both moral and economic’ Oceans. Could Fukushima’s radioactive water pose lasting threat to humans and the environment? |
| HISTORY. The lesson from the criminal H Bomb Bravo “test”– Hibakusha remind us. Oppenheimer feared nuclear annihilation – and only a chance pause by a Soviet submariner kept it from happening in 1962 | MEDIA. New York Times: Nuclear Risks Have Not Gone Away.US Media and Factcheckers Fail to Note Israel’s Refutation of ‘Beheaded Babies’ Stories. ‘Mr Dutton is right’: Murdoch’s News Corp papers grant nuclear power glowing coverage. NewsGuard AI Censorship Targets People Who Read Primary Sources To Fact-Check The News. – (a pro-Trumpist article?- but probably true) | OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . ‘It’ll be a shortlist of one!’ Villagers in England fear nuclear dump proposal. An Open Letter from Hollywood On Oppenheimer and Nuclear Weapons. Kenya. Senator Omtatah to take the Uyombo nuclear power plant war international. |
| POLITICS Australia’s Opposition party’s nuclear red herring is a betrayal of the Australian people . – also at https://antinuclear.net/2024/03/11/1-a-coalitions-nuclear-red-herring-is-a-betrayal-of-the-australian-people/ . Scottish National Party ministers to set out plans for removing nuclear weapons after independence. UK Labour versus Green. UK Budget: Government confirms £160m deal to acquire Hitachi nuclear sites. U.S. Congress about to fund revival of nuclear waste recycling to be led by private start-ups. | SAFETY. Greenpeace warns on danger of restarting Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant . Improvement notice served over storage of hazardous materials at Dounreay. ‘Sometimes I can’t sleep at night’: Adi Roche warns of nuclear risks of Ukraine conflict as she picks up peace award. Aberdeen shipping logistics company warned over nuclear transport safety failings.. | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. China outlines position on use of space resources. Russia says it is considering putting a nuclear power plant on the moon with China. Russia and China announce plan to build shared nuclear reactor on the moon by 2035, ‘without humans’. |
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- The West’s over-involvement in Ukraine.
- F-35A aeroplanes officially certified to carry thermonuclear bomb. NATO bringing missiles closer to Russia – member state.
- Plutonium. Plutonium pit ‘panic’ threatens America’s nuclear ambitions. Does the US Need New Plutonium Pits?.
- Biden is building for Israel a super weapon to replace the Iron Dome.
- Coalition Kill Chain for the Pacific: Lessons from Ukraine. U.S. Sells ‘Link 16’ Battlefield Communications System to Taiwan – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfF4In5Q99Q
WOMEN. Our International Women’s Day Heroine: Rosalie Bertell.
Tell him he’s dreaming’: Bowen rubbishes Coalition claim Australia could have nuclear power in a decade
Energy minister says average build time for a nuclear plant in US is 19 years and giving up on renewables would be a ‘massive economic own goal’
Josh Butler, 10 Mar 24, Guardian
The federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, has dismissed Coalition MP Ted O’Brien’s claim that Australia could develop a nuclear power industry within a decade, stating: “Tell him he’s dreaming.”
The mocking comment on Sunday came as the government continued to pour scorn on the opposition’s speculative alternative plan to renewable energy. O’Brien said the Coalition was in the “advanced stages” of finalising its policy, which is not expected to be unveiled for several weeks.
Bowen also told ABC TV that the government was open to amending its fuel
The federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, has dismissed Coalition MP Ted O’Brien’s claim that Australia could develop a nuclear power industry within a decade, stating: “Tell him he’s dreaming.”
The mocking comment on Sunday came as the government continued to pour scorn on the opposition’s speculative alternative plan to renewable energy. O’Brien said the Coalition was in the “advanced stages” of finalising its policy, which is not expected to be unveiled for several weeks.
Bowen also told ABC TV that the government was open to amending its fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles while again denying claims from the Coalition and some manufacturers that it would increase car prices.
The Coalition’s push for nuclear energy in Australia has been derided by the government and experts. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has not specified where the potential nuclear facilities would be located, nor how much they could contribute to the nation’s energy mix.
Sky News reported on Sunday that a 2020 paper from the NSW chief scientist found a nuclear power industry would require tens of thousands of trained staff and at least two decades to become operational.
Responding to the report, O’Brien – the opposition’s energy spokesman – claimed the Coalition had received different advice.
“The best experts around the world with whom we’ve been engaging are saying Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period,” O’Brien said.
O’Brien did not reveal which experts the Coalition had talked to. Guardian Australia asked his office for more information.
The shadow minister said nuclear could be part of a “balanced mix” of other power types and he criticised Labor for being “negative”.
Bowen was asked about O’Brien’s claim that nuclear could be developed in Australia within a decade.
“Tell him he’s dreaming,” Bowen said on the ABC’s Insiders program, referencing the Australian comedy movie The Castle. “I don’t know what experts he’s talking to.”
Bowen said the average build time for a nuclear plant in the US – a country he called “the nuclear leader of the world” – was 19 years.
“Ted O’Brien thinks he can do it in Australia in 10 with a standing start, no regulations, banned not only nationally but in the three most populous states,” Bowen said.
The minister rubbished arguments that Australia should scrap its ban on nuclear energy to allow private industry to investigate options, claiming that establishing a nuclear industry would require “eye-watering amounts of government taxpayer subsid[ies].”
“I’ve had no one knock on my door to say ‘I want to build a nuclear power plant in Australia’ but I had plenty of the world’s biggest renewables companies through my door,” Bowen said on Sunday.
“There’s a myth this is happening elsewhere in the world. It’s not. Australia has the best renewable resources in the world. It would be a massive economic own goal to give up utilising those resources and go down this nuclear fantasy.”
Beyond suggesting nuclear plants be built at former coal-powered facilities, the Coalition has not confirmed details of their policy – including costs, timeframes, how local opposition would be overcome and the amount of power to be generated.
Dutton could fill in some of the blanks in his budget reply speech in May. He is under pressure to announce details.
Coalition MPs have been agitating for the opposition leader to outline new policies they can spruik ahead of the federal election, which could be held this year…………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/10/tell-him-hes-dreaming-bowen-rubbishes-coalition-claim-australia-could-have-nuclear-power-in-a-decade
Coalition’s nuclear red herring is a betrayal of the Australian people.
Coalition’s nuclear red herring is a betrayal of the Australian people
March 9, 2024 | Canberra Times
Tim Buckley, Annemarie Jonson
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8547521/peter-duttons-nuclear-red-herring-is-a-coalition-betrayal-of-australians/
The sudden enthusiasm of the LNP for nuclear energy is another divisive, cynical and damaging ploy to ignite Climate Wars 2.0 and disrupt and delay Australia’s accelerating renewables transition on behalf of the fossil fuel cartel. The LNP’s climate and energy luddites burned a decade when they were in office. We can’t afford more of the same policy lunacy.
Policy confusion, disinformation and chaos around the nuclear furphy is exactly the solution if you are looking to destroy renewable energy investor confidence, deter investment, and set back our accelerating pathway to decarbonisation – the bedrock of our nation’s economic future. Investors need credible and stable policy and regulation.
The Coalition’s nuclear red herring, and its related threat to pull strategic public capital investment from utility-scale renewables, increases sovereign risk, and is a betrayal of the Australian people.
Nothing about nuclear power makes sense in Australia.
As former Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel has said, it would be 20 years or more before the first operation of small modular reactor (SMR) technology in Australia. We need to decarbonise our energy system and economy this critical decade to address the concurrent climate, energy and cost-of-living crises.
SMR technology is not commercial. There are no SMRs in operation outside of Russia and China. In November, the only SMR development in the US was terminated.
There are no private companies worldwide who can build and operate nuclear power plants without massive government underwriting, because they can’t get insurance.
Tokyo Electric Power Company went bankrupt overnight due to its Fukushima nuclear disaster, requiring a US$200 billion taxpayer bailout of the cleanup costs, which will still be being funded beyond 2050.
In promoting nuclear, the LNP is essentially calling for a massive multi-decade subsidy fest that would make the LNP’s Snowy 2.0 and NBN white elephants look like value for money by comparison. Where has the LNP’s staunch preference for free markets gone?
The LNP nuclear shills say they will soon announce sites for reactors. It is not clear in what universe they think they can secure social licence from impacted communities. Legal challenges and civic protest are inevitable.
How they propose to manage the financial cost of multi-centuries of waste storage and rehabilitation to mitigate risk remains a mystery. It is worth noting the unfunded £260 billion liability this decade UK taxpayers face for decommissioning its nuclear waste. Does the LNP suggest leaving this massive cost to future generations?
The economics simply don’t stack up. Firmed renewables are the cheapest form of energy. The cost of nuclear power generation is much higher than its low-cost clean energy alternatives.
But don’t take our word for it. The CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator said in May 2023 that nuclear is “not an economically competitive solution in Australia”, and that we lack the “frameworks for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”
The 2022 World Nuclear Industry Status Report said that between 2009 and 2021, costs for solar declined from US$359 to US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh), a fall of 90 per cent, and for wind from US$135 to US$38 per MWh, a 72 per cent fall, while nuclear power costs rose from US$123 to US$167 per MWh, up 36 per cent in the same period.
Battery storage costs are falling double digits each year, and Goldman Sachs just forecast another 40 per cent decline by 2025. Massive ongoing deflation is a feature of renewables, nuclear is the opposite; massive ongoing inflation of costs, externalised onto the public (as highlighted by the World Nuclear News).
The Investor Group on Climate Change, representing investors with $30 trillion in assets, said there is no interest among investors in nuclear.
The IGCC notes nuclear has “project time blowouts of anything from seven to 15+ years and cost blowouts in the tens of billions, and lowest-cost technologies, renewables, batteries and so on, are available to deploy now”.
At last, we are seeing a huge influx of capital into Australia’s renewables transition, triggered by the enabling policy architecture of the Albanese federal government such as Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s federal Capacity Investment Scheme announced in late 2023. Our $3.6 trillion super industry has flagged this policy framework as key to crowding in private capital into renewables infrastructure.
Just last month Rio Tinto inked landmark world-scale 25-year power purchasing agreements worth billions that will underwrite the nation’s biggest yet wind and solar developments, powering the processing of its alumina and aluminium in central QLD with green energy.
The Investor Group on Climate Change, representing investors with $30 trillion in assets, said there is no interest among investors in nuclear.
The IGCC notes nuclear has “project time blowouts of anything from seven to 15+ years and cost blowouts in the tens of billions, and lowest-cost technologies, renewables, batteries and so on, are available to deploy now”.
At last, we are seeing a huge influx of capital into Australia’s renewables transition, triggered by the enabling policy architecture of the Albanese federal government such as Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s federal Capacity Investment Scheme announced in late 2023. Our $3.6 trillion super industry has flagged this policy framework as key to crowding in private capital into renewables infrastructure.
Just last month Rio Tinto inked landmark world-scale 25-year power purchasing agreements worth billions that will underwrite the nation’s biggest yet wind and solar developments, powering the processing of its alumina and aluminium in central QLD with green energy.
March 11 – reflecting on Fukushima
by Linda Pentz Gunter https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/10/reflecting-on-fukushima/
The lesson learned should be an end to nuclear power. Japan is going in the opposite direction
On March 11 this year, and every year since 2011, we reflect on what happened on that day at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan — and the impacts that continue. The never-ending tragedy.
The news cycle was 24/7 on the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011. Gradually, the media lost interest. Fresh catastrophes — also human-caused — came to dominate the headlines.
The stories of ongoing harm, of physical and psychic pain, disease and death, displacement, family separation, and lawsuits dismissed or lost, are often told through the megaphones of desperate Japanese mothers, determined not to let such a fate befall another generation. They are the new Hibakusha, the Cassandras of Japan, sounding the warning but doomed to be disbelieved or ignored.
Because there will be another major nuclear disaster. And Japan, shockingly, is lining itself up to be a strong candidate. A country that has now experienced the second worst nuclear disaster of all time, and is heavily seismically active, is seeking not only to reopen its old reactors but to explore building new ones, including small modular reactors.
The only lesson from the Fukushima nuclear disaster that successive Japanese governments seem to have learned is how to minimize, cover-up and even dismiss and deny its devastating environmental and health effects.
It has done this by consistently whitewashing the Fukushima aftermath — holding the Summer Olympics (delayed a year only due to covid, not the unacceptable radiation levels); moving people back into still contaminated areas; ascribing the high thyroid cancer rates to increased testing; forbidding schools to teach children about the harms of radiation; and, of course, pouring radioactive water from the site into the Pacific Ocean so the unsightly waste water storage casks — a perpetual reminder of the continued build-up of radioactive water at the site — will vanish from view along with the bad PR.
Japan got another reminder of just what kind of gamble it is taking when a 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck the Noto Peninsula on January 1st of this year, not far from the Shika nuclear power plant. Buildings fell, 100,000 people were evacuated and tsunami warnings were posted. Conflicting stories emerged as to whether the Shika reactors, mercifully shut down at the time, had suffered lasting damage or whether there were radioactive spills. Area residents have demanded an investigation.
Catastrophe was averted because luck prevailed. Next time, it might not.
All of this should serve as a warning and not only to Japan of course. It doesn’t take an earthquake or a tsunami— or even a war as we are seeing in Ukraine whose reactors remain at perpetual risk —to cause a nuclear disaster. The safety margins are so fragile at nuclear power plants, that even something as minor as a falling tree limb could set an accident in motion if both offsite and then onsite power is lost to the reactors.
There was no war or earthquake or tsunami in Ukraine in 1986 when Chernobyl Unit 4 exploded. Nor in Pennsylvania in 1979 when the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor melted down. Nor in New Mexico later in 1979 when 90 million gallons of radioactive liquid and eleven hundred tons of solid mill waste burst from the Church Rock uranium mill tailings pond, permanently contaminating the Puerto River.
What was there, on each occasion, were human beings who made catastrophic mistakes with a highly dangerous, obsolete technology that even on a good day, causes harm to human health and on a bad one can leave a deadly, longlasting legacy as we have seen in Fukushima.
All of those human errors were preventable. And they still are — provided we remove the object of fallible human responsibility: inherently dangerous nuclear power plants.
The only worthy legacy of the Fukushima disaster, now 13 years on and still going, is to abandon the use of nuclear technology permanently.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. All opinions are her own.
1 This month
25 October – Film –Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story – part of the Adelaide Film Festival,
Screening and Conversation
A screening of Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story (2024) followed by a talk with 2026 Bettison and James Awardee and Tradtional Owner Karina Lester in conversation with Simone Tur.
When: Sun 25 Oct, 12:00pm-Screening, 1:15pm-Talk
Where: The Mercury
Free admission, register below by clicking on BUY TICKETS and select free event tickets, at end of web page:
https://www.adelaidefilmfestival.org/program/2026/britains-nuclear-bomb-scandal-our-story
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
