Nuclear Games
IPPNW Germany 27th Feb 2021On Saturday 27th Feb 2021, the German IPPNW, worked with internationalNGO’s from Japan, and America and Europe, to explain what 10 years of living with the Fukushima disaster really has meant for Japanese people. The 11 talks were recorded on you tube and can be found on the link below.
https://www.youtube.com/user/IPPNWgermany/videos?app=desktop
Nuclear Free And Independent Pacific Day 2021
Nuclear Free And Independent Pacific Day 2021Monday, https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2103/S00005/nuclear-free-and-independent-pacific-day-2021.htm 1 March 2021,
Peace Movement Aotearoa Today, 1 March, is Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day – the 67th anniversary of the ‘Bravo’ nuclear bomb detonation by the United States close to the surface of Bikini Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, which blasted out a crater more than 200 feet deep and a mile across. Particles of radioactive fallout from the blast landed on the island of Rongelap (100 miles away) to a depth of one and a half inches in places, and radioactive mist appeared on Utirik (300 miles away). The US navy did not send ships to evacuate the people of Rongelap and Utirik until three days after the explosion. Fallout from this one nuclear weapon detonation spread over more than 7,000 square miles, and traces were detected throughout the Pacific, in India, Japan, the United States and Europe. The Marshallese, and other Pacific peoples subjected to more than 300 full scale nuclear bomb detonations in the Pacific – conducted by Britain, France and the US – were used as human guinea pigs in an obscene experiment to ‘progress’ the insane pursuit of nuclear weapons supremacy. Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day is a day to remember that the arrogant colonial mindset which allowed, indeed encouraged, this horror continues today – the Pacific is still neither nuclear free nor independent. Much of the Pacific remains under foreign control, from military or illegal occupation to dependence on a coloniser state for international representation, including ‘American’ Samoa, Cook Islands, French-Occupied Polynesia, Guam, Hawai’i, Kanaky, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Marianas, Pitcairn Island, Rapa Nui, Tokelau, Uvea mo Futuna, and West Papua. The voices of these Pacific peoples, along with the voices of ngā hapū o Aotearoa and indigenous Australians, are not heard directly in the UN General Assembly and other international forums where so many decisions on crucial issues affecting our region are made – not only on nuclear weapons and other disarmament priorities, but also on social and economic justice, human rights, protection of natural resources and the environment, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate justice and demilitarisation. The Pacific is one of the regions that is being, and will continue to be, most impacted by climate change and extreme weather events which are affecting low-lying islands and Pacific peoples who are dependent on natural resources for food, clothing and shelter, and on water sources that are vulnerable to salinisation by rising sea levels and high seas. Yet the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions do not come from the Pacific island nations. The Pacific is also one of the most highly militarised regions in the world – but only four Pacific island nations have armed forces. The overwhelming majority of militarisation in the Pacific comes from outside the region – military bases, military training exercises, and military occupation by the armed forces of Indonesia, France and the United States, in particular, along with Australia, Britain, China, New Zealand, Russia and others. Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day is a day to think about the many faces of colonisation – physical, cultural, spiritual, economic, nuclear, military – past and present; the ongoing issues of independence, self-determination and sovereignty here in Aotearoa New Zealand and the other colonised and occupied countries of the Pacific; and the ability of Pacific peoples to stop further nuclearisation, militarisation and economic exploitation of our region. It is a day to acknowledge and remember those who have suffered and died in the struggle for independence around the Pacific; those who have opposed colonisation in its many forms and paid for their opposition with their health and life; and those who have suffered and died as a result of the nuclear weapons states’ use of the Pacific for nuclear experimentation, uranium mining, nuclear bomb blasts and nuclear waste dumping. It is a day to celebrate the courage, strength and endurance of indigenous Pacific peoples who have maintained and taken back control of their lives, languages and lands to ensure the ways of living and being which were handed down from their ancestors are passed on to future generations. It is the day to pledge your support to continue the struggle for a nuclear free and independent Pacific, as the theme of the 8th Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Conference said: “No te parau tia, no te parau mau, no te tiamaraa, e tu, e tu – For justice, for truth and for independence, wake up, stand up!” |
|
Ordinary people do not get truthful information from the government on the Kimba nuclear waste plan
Australia’s purchase of vastly expensive French nuclear-powered submarine design, adapted to diesel, now to be scrapped?
These submarine designs were adapted from the French nuclear submarines. I thought, at the time, that they were chosen in preference to the more suitable, and more affordable German design, under the pressure of the nuclear lobby. Presumably, it would be practical to later adapt these submarines to be nuclear-powered.
Government submarine contract sunk and unlikely to resurface, Independent Australia, 1 Mar 21, The submarine deal France proudly called ‘the contract of the Century’ appears to have collapsed, reports Alan Austin.IF THERE WAS one thing which should unite all media commentators, economic and military analysts, and informed citizens in outrage against the Morrison Government, it is this. The Government has wasted billions of dollars on a deal to buy 12 new submarines which have virtually no chance of fulfilment. As this is written, the head of the French naval construction company Naval Group, Pierre Eric Pommellet, is in Australia meeting federal ministers in an attempt to rescue the contract. Tragically for Australia – and for Monsieur Pommellet – not one of those ministers has the experience or competence to wrangle a successful result. Many informed commentators in France, Australia and elsewhere now expect the much-celebrated deal to be abandoned. If that happens, replacing the current ageing submarines would be delayed many years, depending on the timing of the change of government to a capable administration. Although defence is just one example of Coalition mismanagement, this is where Australia’s losses are arguably most devastating: both in billions of dollars wasted and in the risk to national security. Responsibility for the projectMultiple failures are evident. The most basic is accountability. Since negotiations with France began, Australia has had three prime ministers, three deputy PMs, three failed treasurers, five defence ministers and four ministers for defence industry. Of the 15 individuals to have held these portfolios, seven have left the Parliament. None remaining has the competence to deliver for Australia or the mettle to take responsibility. The current Defence Minister is in hospital on leave. Political priorities paramountA major factor in dashing into the connection with France was the set of promises the Coalition hoped to make chasing votes. In the run-up to the 2019 election, then Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne promised hundreds of new jobs, the “majority of which will be based in South Australia”. Cost and defence considerations were secondary. Many military observers were dismayed at Australia taking the French Shortfin Barracudas over the lower-cost and more suitable alternatives tendered by Japan and Germany. Design and cost errorsSeveral of Australia’s specifications were plain foolish, as Binoy Kampmark summarised for IA. A nuclear submarine with a diesel-electric engine is a fail. An American combat system won’t work in a French vessel because the Americans and the French do not talk. Lead-acid batteries will be obsolete well before the subs are delivered. France’s original tender documents put the cost of the project at between $20 billion and $25 billion. The cost in the initial agreement signed in late 2016 was $50 billion. By February 2020, the Parliamentary Library research service reported that the acquisition cost:
Today, estimates range up to double that quantum. Missed deadlinesDelays so far have pushed back delivery of the first Barracuda from the mid-2020s to the early 2030s and now to the 2040s. The latest missed date was finalising the critical Strategic Partnering Agreement which governs the entire project. This was due before last Christmas………… Excessive secrecy, even from the SenateCompounding all these failures is Morrison’s Cabinet refusing to be answerable to the Parliament. In an ugly confrontation in last month’s Senate Economics References Committee, Defence Department head Greg Moriarty refused point-blank to provide documents which the Committee had the constitutional right to access. Independent Senator Rex Patrick warned Moriarty:
Moriarty steadfastly refused the Committee’s requests, insisting he would do the bidding of the craven Minister and Cabinet. The remedyThus the solution is for the people of Australia to get rid of this secretive bungling regime at the earliest opportunity: to save hundreds of billions of dollars and to ensure effective military capability. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/government-submarine-contract-sunk-and-unlikely-to-resurface,14846 |
|
Ex-PMs Kan, Koizumi urge Japan to quit nuclear power generation
![]()
“Japan has so much natural sources of energy like solar power, hydropower and wind power. Why should we use something that’s more expensive and less safe?” said Koizumi, a maverick reformist who held office from 2001 to 2006, at a joint press conference. Kan, who led the response to the disaster at the time, criticized Yoshihide Suga’s vow to reduce Japan’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, calling it a pretense to restart nuclear reactors across the country, most of which have been halted as utilities wait to clear tougher regulations imposed after the Fukushima crisis. While the former prime ministers come from opposite ends of the political spectrum — Koizumi led the center-right Liberal Democratic Party while Kan headed the now-defunct Democratic Party of Japan, which leaned left — they said opposing nuclear energy was a nonpartisan stance. The main obstacle to shifting toward renewable energy is structural, Kan said, stemming from the entrenched interests of utility companies, government agencies and academics who constitute the “nuclear power village.” “They know it would be too expensive to build new plants, or that there’s no way to properly dispose of nuclear waste. But there are a lot of stakeholders and they want to keep it that way,” said Kan, now a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Regarding tritium-laced water at Fukushima Daiichi quickly filling up tanks, Koizumi said in the press conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan that plans to release the water into the sea were fiercely opposed by local fishermen and that further research into other options was needed. Japan got 76 percent of its electricity from thermal power in fiscal 2019, compared with 18 percent from renewable energy and 6 percent from nuclear energy, according to preliminary data from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Under Suga’s “Green Growth Strategy,” the country is aiming to increase renewable energy to 50-60 percent while thermal power and nuclear energy is to constitute a combined 30-40 percent. |
|
Many people, both inside and outside Kimba, want a judicial review of the government’s nuclear waste dump decision
Commenting on the opinion piece: They have let it come: now build it InDaily
I respect the right of Sean Edwards to express his opinion. However, he makes a number of factual errors which should be corrected.
I will address one: ‘The people of Kimba don’t want judicial review’.
I personally know people from Kimba who do want judicial review.
Furthermore, many outside the Kimba region want judicial review, hence the widespread objection to the proposed amendment. – Andrew Williams https://indaily.com.au/opinion/reader-contributions/2021/03/01/your-views-on-vaccination-sa-nuclear-dump-jobseeker-reviews-and-more/
Australian Strategic Policy Institute – a stooge for weapons industries and China-haters
Independent” think-tank ASPI behind push for more defence spending rakes in advisory fees, Michael West Media, 1 Mar 21, by Marcus Reubenstein | Jul 1, 2020 Funded by the Department of Defence, the Australia Strategic Policy Institute collects millions more as it drives the “China threat” narrative. As Marcus Reubenstein reports, while ASPI is the media’s go-to experts for public comment, ASPI is remarkably coy about revealing all its funding sources.
On the day the Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a $270 billion defence spending plan, the Department of Defence paid the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) a $214,500 contract for “management advisory services”. Exactly one year ago today, it was awarded a similar “management advisory services” contract for the considerably larger amount of $614,536. ASPI has pushed hard for boosts to defence spending, in particular an upgrade of Australia’s missile capabilities. The Government says it will spend $800 million on the US-made AGM-158C Long Range Anti Ship Missile, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, which gave ASPI $135,909 in sponsorship funds in 2018-19. Go-to think tank on ChinaThe Australian Strategic Policy Institute is the “go to” think tank for the mainstream media seeking an “independent voice” to make sense of troubled times with China. Its analysts are knowledgeable and articulate, always forthcoming with research pointing to the strategic threat of China. However, it is less forthcoming about the funders of its research, although it is an open secret that foreign governments and multi-billion-dollar weapons makers are generous supporters. What is not widely known is the extent to which taxpayers are propping it up, through dozens of small contracts not listed in its annual reports. Last year, these contracts amounted to more than $2 million and were signed by the chiefs of a small group of government departments which, say ASPI’s critics, have vested interests in promoting China as Australia’s No. 1 strategic threat. On China’s radarTwo weeks ago, ASPI was again thrust into the international limelight after China’s foreign ministry directly named it as the source of claims by Prime Minister Scott Morrison that Australia was the victim of a sustained cyber security attack. Morrison did not name China but, ASPI’s executive director, Peter Jennings did. He told journalists it was a “95%” likelihood that China was behind the alleged attacks. Critics, including former foreign ministers, ambassadors and senior figures within the defence establishment, contend that ASPI is an anti-China lobby that has hoodwinked the media into believing it is independent. Labor Senator Kim Carr, who is pursuing ASPI through a Senate committee, argues it’s a conflicted government-funded body that lacks transparency, particularly in the way it reports who funds its research. It is an Australian government organisation, a Commonwealth company, and they’ve been at the centre of Sinophobia. This is what happened in the Cold War, you set up a front and create a world view that’s unchallengeable. Then you de-legitimize anyone who argues for engagement with China. Ironically, engagement with China remains official government policy”. Disguised defence largesseThe Howard Government set up ASPI in 2001 as an independent think tank that would challenge a supposed culture of stagnated thinking, weighed down by the defence bureaucracy. Its main funding was an annual grant from the Defence Department but over the past decade it has developed more and more revenue streams — and no obligation to reveal exactly who pays it what. Defence remains its biggest benefactor. Before the federal election, the Morrison Government not only increased this funding by more than 13%, it locked in a guaranteed $20 million until 2023. This largesse does not include one-off payments for sponsorship and commissioned reports. In its annual reports, ASPI declares the $4 million annual Defence grant but opaquely refers to this as “core funding”. According to Department of Finance figures, in 2018-19 it received an additional $1,363,002.84 in funding from Defence, which was not publicly declared. According to answers it provided to a Senate Estimates committee in February, ASPI collected $1,158,581.63 (pre-GST) in funding from Defence without clearly declaring the source of those funds. ASPI didn’t explain the discrepancy between its two reported figures. Shrinking support?In its annual report, ASPI splits income into two sources: “Defence funding” and “Sale of goods and rendering of services”. It also produced a gloomy graph [on original] showing how “core” funding had withered away from 100% of its income to a moderate 43%. However, the graph doesn’t take into account its numerous government tenders and contracts that have delivered a financial windfall. In the past five years the value of its government contracts has increased by more than 300%. (second graph on original] Figures from the Department of Finance’s procurement website AusTender show ASPI was awarded $2,133,716.62 in contracts between July 2019 and June 2020. ASPI records all these government payments in its annual reports but muddies the waters by consolidating them with sponsorships and other commercial revenue. ASPI has received 37 government contracts in the past two years. See below [on original] or click here for easier viewing………. Major backersASPI has received funding from the governments of Britain, Japan and Taiwan as well as NATO. Among its corporate supporters are global weapons makers Thales, BAE Systems, Raytheon, SAAB, Northrop Grumman, MDBA Missile Systems and Naval Group. Yet their contribution of over $330,000 last year is dwarfed by that of a handful of government departments and agencies. Disclosures to the Senate revealed that ASPI had at least 56 sources of income in 2018-19 which it categorised as either sponsorships or commissioned income. Critics might accuse ASPI of having a narrow world view, but its views are financially supported by a very broad base of benefactors. Michael West Editor’s Note: This is a special investigation by APAC News, Michael West Media and Pearls & Irritations https://www.michaelwest.com.au/independent-think-tank-aspi-behind-push-for-more-defence-spending-rakes-in-advisory-fees/ |
|
“Not even close:” UN slams Australia and other rich countries for weak climate efforts — RenewEconomy

UN review of emissions targets finds countries “nowhere near” on track to keep global warming to safe levels, and countries like Australia must do much more. The post “Not even close:” UN slams Australia and other rich countries for weak climate efforts appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Not even close:” UN slams Australia and other rich countries for weak climate efforts — RenewEconomy
March 1 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Will Tesla Hit Elon’s 20 Million Vehicles Per Year By 2030 Target?” • One of the bolder targets announced by Tesla CEO Elon Musk last year was to reach a 20 million-vehicle-per-year production capacity before 2030. He projected 30 million EVs sold annually by all companies in six to seven years. Are those […]
March 1 Energy News — geoharvey
AEMO abandons plan to model ‘gas led recovery’, after idea panned by energy market — RenewEconomy

AEMO abandons plan to model the Morrison’s ‘gas led recovery’ in next ISP, after key energy market players question whether if was even plausible. The post AEMO abandons plan to model ‘gas led recovery’, after idea panned by energy market appeared first on RenewEconomy.
AEMO abandons plan to model ‘gas led recovery’, after idea panned by energy market — RenewEconomy
to March 1st – nuclear news Australia
Like most people, I have not been able to keep up with the pandemic news. Figures on the incidence of Covid-19, and on deaths, seem to fluctuate. Amidst the uncertainties about types of vaccines, new virus strains, and the anti-vaxxer movement, still there is an atmosphere of optimism. Vaccine acceptance is rising in many countries, and health workers and many volunteers are putting in the efforts to administer vaccines , and care for those who are ill.
David Attenborough warns the U.N. Security Council – the world risks ‘collapse of everything’ without strong climate action.
A bit of good news – Pollution in the Mississippi River Has Plummeted Since The 1980s
AUSTRALIA.
Australian scientists warn urgent action needed to save 19 ‘collapsing’ ecosystems.
Australian federal and state governments keeping laws banning nuclear power, despite Murdoch pro nuclear propaganda. Kimba radioactive trash Bill stagnates in the Senate, as Right-wing media extols nuclear power. Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained. A new motley crew of Australian politicians form “Friends of Nuclear”
Australian government’s nuclear waste plans unacceptable – Dr Margaret Beavis. Australian government obsessed with preventing legal appeals against its nuclear waste dump plan.
National Farmers Federation want govt to support renewable energy (not coal or nuclear).
Murder, corruption, bombings – the company at centre of Australia’s submarine deal.
The remediation of Ranger uranium mine: will it really restore the environment?
INTERNATIONAL
The role of the Churches in promoting the U.N. Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. Nuclear-weapons treaty the right way forward.
The media revels in rockets to Mars, ignores the horrible risk of plutonium pollution.
Why is the media fawning over nuclear businessman Bill Gates? Nuclear power-not clean, not renewable – Bill Gates is wrong.
Dr Helen Caldicott on Independent Australia tells The Truth About Nuclear Power.ant.
A new motley crew of Australian politicians form “Friends of Nuclear”
Reporter Rosie Lewis, writing in THE AUSTRALIAN (25/12/21) recorded, with that paper’s usual pro nuclear joy and delight, that 21 Australian politicians have signed up to this group. They named only 9 of these MPs, a motley crew indeed, of minor party members, and 5 Labor Party ones.
It gets confusing, as Labor has a clear policy of prohibiting nuclear technology, ( excluding the Lucas Heights Opal reactor). But then, sabotage of Labor policies is not a new thing for Joel Fitzgibbon. He opposes Labor’s climate policy (which is strange, as nuclear’s big push is about purporting to combat climate change)
However, you can bet that the remaining 12 ‘nuclear friends’ would be Liberals and Nationals.
Meanwhile, the 9 mentioned have an odd assortment of views on energy – some support renewable energy, some oppose. There’s some scepticism on climate change, where you’d expect nuclear being touted as the solution. And Pauline Hanson is on record as opposing the nuclear lobby’s plan for a nuclear waste dump at Kimba, South Australia.
“Dr Gillespie and Senator Gallacher said their priority was on educating other MPs — particularly within Labor — about nuclear energy.” “We can introduce the best scientific minds into our parliamentary friendship group and bring them to Canberra.”
Of course, those “best scientific minds” will come from “Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and other government and industry bodies” which function primarily as nuclear promoters, anyway. I don’t think they’ll be inviting Dr Helen Caldicott, Dr Jim Green, or Dave Sweeney fron the Australian Conservation Foundation.
The end of the NEM as we know it — RenewEconomy

As coal generators exit the grid, Australia is going to have to focus on flexibility in the market, and harnessing distributed resources. The post The end of the NEM as we know it appeared first on RenewEconomy.
The end of the NEM as we know it — RenewEconomy
Small Nuclesar Reactors – not all they’re cracked up to be
Small Nuclear Reactors, There has of late been a lot of promotion of the idea of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) of a few tens or hundreds of megawatts, which it is claimed will be cheaper than conventional gigawatt scaled plants since they can benefit from economies of mass production in factories. Much has been promised for SMRs, including the delivery of power at £40-60/MWh, but there is still some way to go before any project actually goes ahead and we can see if the promises hold upon practice.


The safety issue interacts with the other key issues for SMRs- location. If they are going to be economically viable, some say that SMRs will have to be run in Combined Heat and Power ‘Cogen’ mode, supplying heat for local used, as well as power for the grid. That implies that they will have to sited in or near large heat loads i.e. in or near urban areas. Will local residents be keen to have mini-nuclear plants near by? That issue is already being discussed in the USA, with some urban resistance emerging.
A key issue in that context is that it has been argued that since they allegedly will be safer, SMRs will not need to have such large evacuation zones as is the norm for standard reactors, most of which are sited in relatively remote area. Indeed, unless that requirement was changed, operation in cities could be impossible- they could not easily be evacuated fast if there was an accident, or perhaps a security threat. On the basis of this view, SMRs will only ever be relevant for remote sites, and of course there are plenty of such locations where local power generation might be welcome, although arguably, renewable sources might be easier, safer and cheaper to use. Indeed, that might be said of all locations.
The debate over safety, security and location will continue to unfold, with folksy mini-nuke designs emerging for remote rural locations, but concerns also growing over the many unknowns, not least the costs and market potential. There are SMR programmes in the US and UK and elsewhere, but there are big doubts about whether there would be a viable market for this technology.
That is despite the fact that there is some dual use/expertise overlap between civil and military nuclear, and, more specifically, that mini reactors are used for submarine propulsion. While that may be one reason why companies like Rolls Royce are pushing for SMRs, on its own military submarine use is a relatively small market.
There is no shortage of promotional enthusiasm for SMRs for a variety of reasons, including, it is claimed, defence-related, and some arguably extravagant claims on comparative investment costs have been made. However, there have also been some strong critiques and gloomy prognoses. At best, they say, SMRs may have a role to play in some remote locations and, as with nuclear generally, perhaps for heat production and hydrogen production, for example for industrial purposes. It has also been claimed that SMRs could produce synthetic aircraft fuel as substitute for kerosene, although ‘at around about twice the price’.
That all seem to be a long shot, with many unknowns, and in terms of energy supply of whatever type, renewables may have the edge in most contexts. However, it is just conceivable that SMRs could be used to back up renewables. Some types of SMR may be able to run more flexibly than can large conventional reactors, so that they could play a role in balancing variable renewables. That is still very uncertain, in operational and cost terms, and there are many other arguably simpler, safer and cheaper options for grid balancing. Though, evidently keen to try their luck, a UK developer has talked of using NuScale units in a hybrid wind-SMR system.
So what’s the bottom line? For the moment, although being pushed in the US and UK and elsewhere, SMRs are some way off, with very mixed prospects. But technology can move fast, and although there will no doubt be local resistance, and they may not pop up near you for a while, we may yet see fission-based SMRs emerge for some remote applications within in a decade or two. Can the same be said for fusion? Some very optimistically are talking about the arrival soon of mini fusion! That seems unlikely, and my guess is that, if fusion SMRs are ever possible, their main use will be off-planet. Same possibly for most fission SMRs! Back on this planet, we’ve got plenty of renewables to get on with, and in that context, arguably, small nuclear, of whatever sort, does not really offer anything different from big nuclear. Just another costly distraction from getting on with renewables
Fukushima disaster: Is TEPCO nuclear plant still a safety risk? — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

Ten years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. has been criticized for failing to learn safety lessons. A seismograph at the Fukushima Daiichi plant malfunctioned during a recent earthquake Februay 26, 2021 Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, is facing renewed criticism that it […]
Fukushima disaster: Is TEPCO nuclear plant still a safety risk? — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs