Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

The Independent Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) rejects proposed changes to laws prohibiting nuclear power.

Recommendation 1
Reject the proposed amendments to bills
The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Recommendation 2
Threat priorities
The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency:
(a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of
the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Recommendation 3
Nuclear energy
The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear
energy source.

Submission No.17. The Independent Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) Public Submission to the Inquiry into Environment andOther Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022

About IPAN
IPAN is a national umbrella organisation of community, peace, faith and environmental groups and trade
unions around Australia with an interest in peace and security. IPAN aims to build public dialogue and pressure
for change to a truly independent foreign policy for Australia – one in which our government plays a positive
role in solving international conflicts peacefully.


The announcement of the Inquiry into Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear
Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 comes at a very critical time for our country.


IPAN feels very strongly about providing a contribution to this inquiry and seeks to make comments on the
proposal to both amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the
prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and to amend the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment
and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain
nuclear installations. These Acts currently expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation
of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.

Australia currently faces rapidly changing strategic circumstances, global instability and planetary threats to
human security. This set of interlinking challenges, among others, requires an urgent and holistic response
from the Australian government.


Recognising the circumstances outlined above, in 2020 IPAN initiated its own national public inquiry to ‘Explore
the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’ (the People’s Inquiry) so as to determine a path that would
lead Australia towards a genuinely independent, peaceful and secure defence and foreign policy.
IPAN led ‘People’s Inquiry: Exploring the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’

The People’s Inquiry comprehensively questioned the foundations and assumptions underpinning the
cornerstone of Australia’s security – the Australia-US Alliance – across several impact areas: military and
defence, foreign policy, First Nations peoples, politics, society, workers, economy, and the environment.


The People’s Inquiry received 283 submissions from individuals and organisations across the country. An
interim report was released in October 2021 and the full report was released on 22 November 2022.


IPAN’s submission to this current inquiry draws, in part, on the findings and recommendations of the People’s
Inquiry, specifically those related to the area of impact on First Nation’s people, military and defence, foreign
policy and the environment. In particular, some submissions focused directly on issues surrounding nuclear
energy including concerns around storage of nuclear waste and consultation around land use (IPAN 2022a.
pp.21,23).
For a full copy of the Inquiry Report go to https://independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/

Introduction
IPAN’S interest in matters related to nuclear energy, nuclear installations and nuclear weapons


IPAN has had a longstanding concern about nuclear issues, as a network of organisations and individuals
motivated by the desire to see peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and greatly concerned that our
world never sees a nuclear bomb dropped again – in particular such as the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in 1945, leading to the immediate and subsequent deaths of over two hundred thousand people.


To this end, IPAN (and many member organisations and individual members) has been a very strong supporter
of the international Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) regarding the adoption of a UN treaty to
prohibit nuclear weapons – i.e. the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

IPAN has been heartened by the positive steps that have been taken by the new Federal government, in
attending the first Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in Vienna in June and ending Australia’s opposition tothe treaty by abstaining on a resolution at the UN First Committee after the previous government’s practice of voting ‘No’

Proposed Amendments to Federal Legislation
IPAN is concerned about the proposals in the bill to amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations;
and in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the
Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or
operation of certain nuclear installations.

IPAN’ broad concerns with the use of nuclear power
First and foremost, IPAN believes that radiation is dangerous to people and the environment and that it is
critical to reduce human exposure to it. In addition, IPAN believes that the adoption of nuclear power in
Australia would increase electricity costs, slow the transition to a low-carbon economy and introduce the
potential for catastrophic accidents.


IPAN is also concerned about the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with huge
volumes required for the production of nuclear energy. We are also concerned about the contentious issue of
where to store nuclear waste, given the associated long-term risks of storage.

This submission therefore makes a number of key points in relation to the proposed amendments to the two
acts – which if adopted would remove the blanket prohibition on the construction or operation of certain
nuclear facilities. IPAN believes that the current blanket prohibition acts as a very important safeguard against
the risks and dangers associated with the nuclear industry – and that to remove this blanket prohibition would
be to the detriment of the Australian community, the environment and the Australian ecosystem.

Factors for the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications to consider in its
decision regarding the proposed amendments

1 The dangers of radiation and risks of human exposure …………………………………………………….

2. Lack of compliance in the uranium mining industry.…………………………………………………….

3 The links between nuclear technology and military nuclear technology’

IPAN is in particular concerned with the links between civil nuclear technology and military nuclear technology.
The ACF have highlighted that uranium is a “dual use fuel and nuclear is a dual use technology – it can power a reactor or a weapon” and they have described how the current conflict in Ukraine has seen “the weaponization of nuclear facilities and the threat of an uncontrolled radiation release”, even if the Russian army does not use its nuclear weapons (ACF 2022a, p.1 cited in IPAN, 2022, p. 71).

The development of nuclear energy could be seen as a slippery slope to the eventual development of nuclearpowered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. It is important to recognise that nuclear power
programs have provided cover for numerous weapons programs over many years. An expansion of nuclear
power would simply worsen the situation……………………

Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed military or terrorist targets. The current situation in Ukraine illustrates the
risks:…………………………..

The current ban on nuclear energy in Australia provides a very important safeguard to avoid any chance of the
eventual development of nuclear-powered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. We must continue
this ban…………………………………………………………

4 The Costs of Nuclear Power

As pointed out in the second reading speech (by Senator Matt Canavan) of the ‘Environment and Other
Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Wednesday, 28 September 2022, the building of a nuclear plant requires high capital costs and long construction times. While the Senator also
argues that nuclear plants have relatively low operating costs – other factors must be considered, such as the
cost of rehabilitation of mines and the cost of storage of nuclear waste, as well as the many risks involved………………………………………………

5. The Costs of nuclear energy vs renewable energy sources

IPAN believes that it is important to address a number of the claims made by Senator Canavan in the Second
reading Speech (Australian Parliament 2022), for example where he asserted that “The relative costs of nuclear
compare well to renewable energy. Between 1965 and 2018 the world spent $2 trillion on nuclear compared to $2.3 trillion for solar and wind, yet nuclear today produces around double the electricity than that of solar and
wind.” He also added that costs may reduce soon.


As figures from Lazard Asset Investment (2021) in their annual Levelized Cost of Energy, Levelized Cost of
Storage, and Levelized Cost of Hydrogen Report showed, the cost of nuclear energy is far greater than that of
renewables, as per the following table. [ on original]

The costs of renewable technologies continue to decline globally, albeit at a slowing pace, reflecting reductions
in capital costs, increased competition as the sector continues to mature and continued improvements in scale
and technology. “Since 2010, the cost of energy has dropped by 82% for photovoltaic solar, by 47% for
concentrated solar energy (CSP), by 39% for onshore wind and by 29% for wind offshore.”


Unlike the costs of wind and solar, the cost of nuclear power has actually risen over time, since 2008, the
“projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by fourfold…and it is still rising”.

These figures are backed up by recent research from CSIRO and the national energy market operator (the
Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO), with the 2022 CSIRO-AEMO GenCost report also showing that
nuclear power is simply not competitive with renewables, with 2030 cost estimates for Australia as follows

  • A$136-326/MWh for Nuclear (small modular):
  • A$61-82/MWh for 90 percent wind and solar PV with integration costs (transmission, storage and
    synchronous condensers) necessary to allow these variable renewables to provide 90 percent of electricity in
    the National Electricity Market. (CSIOR/AEMO, 2022).

IPAN believes that there is simply no economic case for nuclear power in Australia.

Senator Canavan also referred to the trials of Small Modular Reactors that are happening in a range of
countries currently and that “if they become a commercial prospect, their modular nature may deliver
substantial cost savings through mass production”.

The ACF/ICAN have made the very clear point that SMRs however are unproven and do not actually make
electricity in the real world, and further to this, the US Academy of Science in 2018 stated that “several
hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and
deployment over the next several decades” (cited in ACF/ICAN 2022)……………………………………………………

6 Environmental Impacts
Urgent and Effective Action required.

The chaotic climate events that have punished Australia in recent years demand urgent and effective action.That urgency disqualifies the most expensive and slowest response (as outlined immediately above). In thisway, expense is not simply a consideration for investors. In addition, the imperative to better manage climate change is a strong argument against nuclear power

Storage of Nuclear Waste
IPAN is concerned that despite years of debate and attempted negotiations around the storage of nuclear
waste, it is now 2023 and there is still no agreement on a proven solution to manage or isolate and dispose of
high-level radioactive waste that has been produced in power reactors. Currently there is not one single
operating deep underground repository for high-level nuclear waste across the world……………………………

………………………………………

Another very significant factor is the extreme reluctance on the part of communities earmarked as a site or
potential site for nuclear waste. There are clear issues of racism in the choice of nuclear waste dump sites.

A pertinent point is made by Native American activist, Winona LaDuke,
The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive
waste problem for fifty years, and they’ve finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an
Indian reservation.

Three years of electricity in a reactor leaves a legacy of 100,000 years of waste – a massive inter-generational
burden, which represents a “Poor risk to return ratio” and damage to the environment for hundreds of
thousands of years……………………………………………….

Water resources required
There are also significant issues around the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with
a huge volume of precious and at times scarce water resources required on an ongoing basis for the production
of nuclear energy. As an example from Australia, the Mulga Rock uranium project (200 kms east of Kalgoorlie – near the Queen Victoria nature reserve in the Great Victoria Desert), one of four proposed uranium
mines given approval by WA’s former Liberal-National government Environmental approvals, would see the
“extraction of 15 million litres of water per day, would create 32 million tonnes of tailings, threatens vulnerable species including the Sandhill Dunnart” (ACF/ICAN 2022)…………………………………………………….

Australia’s current independent stance in banning nuclear energy

AS rightly pointed out, by Senator Canavan in the Second Reading Speech, Australia is “the only developed
country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy (which has been in effect since the 10
December 1999 decision of Federal Parliament Australia is also one of only three countries within the 20
richest nations in the world to not have nuclear energy………………….. this must be a cause of celebration, not derision. IPAN feels that it is disingenuous of Senator Canavan to refer to Australia’s “status as a nuclear outcast”. While Senator Canavan highlights the fact
that “Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world” – this is not a reason to develop nuclear
energy, for all of the reasons that IPAN is highlighting in this submission.

Decisions about investing in nuclear energy
IPAN has concerns about Senator Canavan’s assertion that “The potential for high costs is not a reason to ban
anyone building a power station” and that “Decisions about the relative profitability of different investments
should be left to the businesses making those decisions”. This is not how public policy works. There are a rangeof processes and provisions that must be worked through with any public policy decision, with environmental impact assessments being one such example. Decisions such as these cannot happen in a void or be left purelyto the market (usually subsidised, in the case of nuclear power).


It also seems rather bewildering that the Senator also makes the seemingly very obvious comment that
“Our environmental laws should focus on protecting Australia’s natural environment.”. The proposal to amend
the two Acts in question represents precisely the kind of scenario where environmental laws should come in to
play – to assess any negative impacts on the natural environment that would result from future use of nuclearenergy.

Previous Inquiries regarding nuclear energy in Australia
A number of recent and very recent inquiries are very relevant to the issues being examined in this current
inquiry. It is fair to say each of the three inquiries listed did not come out favourably for the nuclear industry.

The 2006 UMPNER was particularly comprehensive and very well resourced and contained a relatively high
proportion of people who were pro-nuclear – yet it concluded with a resounding, reluctant ‘no’.

10 Impact on First Nations peoples
First Nations’ peoples and their lands are especially impacted by the nuclear industry, both historically (sincethe UK nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s in outback South Australia) and presently.

11 Human rights issues

……………………………… There are clearly human rights implications whenever there is a proposal for the introduction or use of a substance or material that has the potential for catastrophic accidents and where there are inherent risks and challenges, such as those associated with the use of nuclear energy and high-level nuclear waste management. The exclusion of First Nations Peoples from their traditional lands used as the waste repository site represents a major denial of the human rights of those First Nations People.

12 Why Australia should sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)…………………………………………………………………………………..

Recommendations
IPAN submits the following recommendations to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Environment and Communications:

Recommendation 1
Reject the proposed amendments to bills
The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Recommendation 2
Threat priorities
The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency:
(a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of
the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Recommendation 3
Nuclear energy
The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear
energy source.

February 25, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Defense Minister Attempts to Reassure Thailand Over Nuclear Subs

Defense Post 24 Feb 23, Australia’s defense minister aimed to reassure Thailand on Friday that plans to acquire a new fleet of nuclear submarines would enhance “collective security” in the region after neighboring countries voiced concerns.

The submarine issue came up during a visit to Manila earlier this week, Defense Minister Richard Marles told AFP in an interview, and was also on the agenda for Friday’s talks with Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-O-Cha, who is responsible for defense……………..

Malaysia and Indonesia have expressed concerns about the acquisition, warning against an arms race.

But Marles said Australia wanted to build a “sense of confidence” about the plan…………….

Marles said Friday that “acquiring a conventionally powered submarine is not going to form part of any solution.”  https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/02/24/australia-thailand-nuclear-subs/

February 25, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Victoria sweetens deal on transmission build-out with promise of cash for landholders — RenewEconomy

Andrews government to pay additional yearly rate to landholders who host new transmission lines, in bid to smooth the race to renewables. The post Victoria sweetens deal on transmission build-out with promise of cash for landholders appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Victoria sweetens deal on transmission build-out with promise of cash for landholders — RenewEconomy

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Big win for wind, solar and storage as ministers reject ESB on grid congestion — RenewEconomy

Energy ministers dump another controversial ESB proposal in big win for wind, solar and storage projects over grid congestion issues. The post Big win for wind, solar and storage as ministers reject ESB on grid congestion appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Big win for wind, solar and storage as ministers reject ESB on grid congestion — RenewEconomy

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No miracles needed’: Prof. Mark Jacobson on how much wind, sun and water can power the world

by Damian Carrington, Environmental Editor, The Guardian, January 23 2023  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

“Combustion is the problem – when you’re continuing to burn something, that’s not solving the problem,” says Prof Mark Jacobson.

The Stanford University academic has a compelling pitch: the world can rapidly get 100% of its energy from renewable sources with, as the title of his new book says, “no miracles needed”.

Wind, water and solar can provide plentiful and cheap power, he argues, ending the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis, slashing deadly air pollution and ensuring energy security. Carbon capture and storage, biofuels, new nuclear and other technologies are expensive wastes of time, he argues.

“Bill Gates said we have to put a lot of money into miracle technologies,” Jacobson says. “But we don’t – we have the technologies that we need. We have wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, electric cars. We have batteries, heat pumps, energy efficiency. We have 95% of the technologies right now that we need to solve the problem.” The missing 5% is for long-distance aircraft and ships, he says, for which hydrogen-powered fuel cells can be developed.

Jacobson’s claim is a big one. He is not just talking about a shift to 100% renewable electricity, but all energy – and fossil fuels still provide about 80% of that today. Jacobson has scores of academic papers to his name and his work has been influential in policies passed by cities, states and countries around the world targeting 100% green power. He is also controversial, not least for pursuing a $10m lawsuit against researchers who claimed his work was flawed, which he later dropped.

The evidence that proves he is right is collected in the new book, Jacobson says. Not only is a 100% renewables-powered world possible, it also promises much lower energy bills, he says. The first reason for that is that electrified vehicles, heating and industrial processes are far more efficient than those powered by fossil fuels, where much of the energy is wasted as heat.

Add in better-insulated buildings and ending the drilling and mining for the fossil fuels that consume about 11% of all energy, and you get 56% less energy use on average from 2035 to 2050, Jacobson says. Wind and solar energy are cheaper too, so average bills will fall 63%, he says.

Jacobson divides approaches to the energy transition into two camps: “One says we should just try everything – they’re the ‘all-of-the-above camp’ – and keep investing huge amounts of money in technologies that may or may not be available to work in 10 years. But 10 years is too late.” Carbon emissions must fall by 45% by 2030, scientists agree, to keep on track for no more than 1.5C of global heating.

His camp takes a different approach, Jacobson says: “Let’s focus on what we have and deploy as fast as possible. And we will improve those technologies just by deploying, bringing better solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles and so on. Some people just don’t realise the speed that we need to solve these problems, especially air pollution – 7 million people die every year. We can’t wait.”

However, there are major barriers to a rapid rollout of a 100% renewable energy system, he says: “The No 1 barrier is that most people are not aware that it’s possible. My job is trying to educate the public about it. If people are actually comfortable that it’s possible to do, then they might actually do it.”

He adds: “The policy of all-of-the-above is also a big barrier to a transition. In the US, for example, in the recent [climate legislation], a lot of money was spent on carbon capture, small modular nuclear reactors, biofuels, blue hydrogen. These are all what I consider almost useless, or very low-use, technologies in terms of solving the problems. And yet, a lot of money is spent on them. Why? Because there are big lobby groups.” Another barrier is funding the upfront costs of renewable energy in poorer countries – rich countries need to help, he says.

Jacobson believes progress towards a 100% renewable energy system can be fast: “The goal is 80% by 2030, and 100% by 2050. But, ideally, if we can get 80% by 2030, we should get 100% by 2035 to 2040.”

Solving the stability problem

A big concern about a world overwhelmingly reliant on electricity is maintaining the stability of grids powered by renewables. Where there are large amounts of hydropower from dams this is relatively easy – at least 10 countries already have 100% renewable grids. But in other places reliance on intermittent wind and solar is more challenging. The answer, says Jacobson, is energy storage, managing the demand, and connecting up renewables over wider areas to enable greater continuity of supply.

Storage can be batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, compressed air and lowering and raising heavy weights. Jacobson thinks batteries will win, but says others could contribute if they can compete on cost. New research indicates that electric vehicle batteries alone could provide the short-term storage needed by global grids as early as 2030.

Jacobson also advocates heat storage for some buildings: “Storing heat in boreholes, aquifers or water pits is dirt cheap, excuse the pun. It’s less than $1 a kilowatt hour of storage.” Managing demand, by varying electricity prices with demand, is already growing fast, he says. When the renewables supply exceeds the demand, the electricity should be used to produce green hydrogen, he says, to power the fuel cells needed by energy-intensive users.

“Managing the grid is just an optimisation problem, not a rocket science problem,” he says. “I don’t want to say there’s zero problems, but usually these challenges are ironed out over time just by experience.”

Another criticism of a major renewables rollout is the mining required for the metals used. But Jacobson says such a rollout would in fact hugely reduce extraction from the earth by ending fossil fuel exploitation: “The total amount of mining that’s going to be needed for wind, water, solar, compared to [the] fossil fuel system, is much less than 1% in terms of the mass of materials.”

Jacobson is scathing about many nascent technologies being promoted as climate solutions. “Carbon capture and storage is solely designed to keep the fossil fuel industry in business,” he says. Only some of the CO2 is captured and buried, he says, and deadly air pollution continues unabated. Blue hydrogen, produced from fossil gas with some CO2 then captured and buried, is far inferior to green hydrogen produced directly from renewable electricity, Jacobson says: “Blue hydrogen is just really convoluted.”

New nuclear plants are too slow to build and too expensive compared with wind and solar, in Jacobson’s view: “You end up waiting 15 to 20 years longer, for a seven to eight times higher electricity price – it just makes no sense. Even if they improve [build times], say to 12 years, that’s still way too long. We have cheaper, faster, safer technologies. Why waste time?”

Biofuels are also dismissed by Jacobson: “The biofuels push was really not helpful. They hold constant, or increase, air pollution and they use a huge amount of land.”

He is a little more measured when it comes to direct air capture (DAC): technologies that can suck CO2 from the air for burial. It has no role today, he says, with spending on renewables far more cost effective in cutting emissions. But even when fossil fuel burning ends, many scientists have concluded that CO2 will have to be drawn from the air to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. At that point, Jacobson says, the costs of DAC should be compared with other ways to sequester carbon and limit global heating, such as reforestation and cutting emissions of other more powerful greenhouse gases, including methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from fertilisers.

Supporters and critics

Jacobson’s book has attracted support from some experts. Prof Michael Mann, at the University of Pennsylvania, says the book “presents a comprehensive and detailed blueprint for the options we have right now to address the climate crisis”. Mann has said those insisting we lack the tools to decarbonise the economy today are wrong.

Prof Claudia Kemfert, at the German Institute for Economic Research, who has advised the German government and European Commission, says: “[The book] shows impressively that numerous crises can be killed with one stone, without us having to wait for miracles.”

But others are critical of a focus on only wind, water and solar. Prof Ken Caldeira, at the Carnegie Institution for Science in the US, says: “Having a broader set [of technologies] in the toolbox only makes it easier to solve problems. We will only use the tools that it makes sense to use in any particular circumstance, but maintaining and expanding our options is a good thing.

“The key question is not what is physically possible in an ideal world, but what is practically possible in the world as we know it,” he says.

Prof Rob Gross, the director of the UK Energy Research Centre, is somewhere in the middle of the debate: “I broadly agree that we can largely use existing technologies, but we will need to put those to new applications, such as using bulk stores of hydrogen in order to provide interseasonal storage.”

“Moonshot efforts to invent entirely new things are almost certainly a distraction,” he adds. “Jacobson is right that the principal need is to deploy what we have. He is wrong to the extent he makes this sound easy.”

Asked about the controversy around his work, Jacobson says: “Usually, the people against us don’t like the fact that we don’t include their technologies.” On the lawsuit over a critical paper, he says: “That was not a question of a scientific disagreement.” He claims it was an attempt to protect his reputation. He dropped the case in 2018.

Jacobson remains optimistic: “There is a technical and economic solution to the climate, air pollution and energy security problems we face. But we do have major challenges in trying to implement that solution. The challenges are getting the political willpower to focus on a narrow set of solutions that we can implement quickly. The vested interests are very much a problem because they are pushing this ‘all of the above’ approach.”

  • No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air by Mark Z Jacobson is published by Cambridge University Press on 2 February 2023.

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

China calls for Russia to not go down the ‘nuclear weapons route’

 https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/china-calls-for-russia-to-not-go-down-the-nuclear-weapons-route/video/728695b319ec9070c739b7fd4eb7c4f9

DFAT Australia China Council Scholar Andrew Phelan says that China has called for Russia to ‘leave nuclear power plants’ and not pursue the ‘nuclear weapons route’ in a 12-point peace plan released this afternoon.

“There are a couple of good things about it,” Mr Phelan told Sky News host Caleb Bond.

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biden team has ‘deeply rooted hatred for Russia’ – US congressman

I know that Donald Trump is awful. And so is his Republican support team. Nevertheless, sometimes they say something sensible – something that needs to be said

Senior State Department officials Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are “dangerous fools,” Paul Gosar declared

Senior officials at the US State Department are attempting to get the country “involved in another world war” with Russia, Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar tweeted on Friday. Gosar, Twitter CEO Elon Musk, and former president Donald Trump, have all named Victoria Nuland as the most dangerous among this group in recent days.

Responding to an RT article on Musk accusing Nuland of “pushing this war” in Ukraine, Gosar declared that the billionaire “is correct.”

“Both Nuland and Blinken have a deeply rooted irrational hatred of Russia, and they seek to get the US involved in another world war,” he continued. “These are dangerous fools who can get us all killed.”

In a follow-up tweet, Gosar wrote that “as a non-soldier, Nuland is quite willing to endorse violence and war.” The Republican lawmaker then quoted the article, which stated that Nuland had “endorsed regime change in Russia, celebrated the US’ destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, and called for the indefinite flow of arms into Ukraine.”

As assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2014, Nuland helped to orchestrate the pro-Western coup that unseated democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovich. Nuland traveled to Kiev and promised military aid to the rioters, and was recorded plotting to install a successor to Yanukovich.

As Biden’s secretary of state, Blinken has promised to keep weapons flowing into Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” and advised Kiev in December not to seek the kind of negotiated settlement that would liken to a “phony peace.”

Gosar has been a persistent critic of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy since Russia’s military operation began a year ago on Friday. However, although the Republican Party now controls the House of Representatives, there is little the Arizona congressman can do to change the administration’s course. A significant bipartisan majority supports continued military aid to Ukraine, with only 11 Republicans, Gosar included, sponsoring legislation that would cut funding for Kiev. 

These Republicans are all allies of former president Donald Trump. In a campaign video released on Tuesday, Trump blamed the situation in Ukraine on Nuland and “others like her” in the Biden administration. Nuland, he said, was “obsessed with pushing Ukraine towards NATO,” adding that the conflict would have “never happened if I was your president.”

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Courting disaster —Missiles have been passing too close to Ukraine’s reactors

Courting disaster — Beyond Nuclear International Embroiled in a year-long war, Ukraine’s reactors face new threats
By Linda Pentz Gunter
A year ago, we warned of the significant and unacceptable risks to Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors, should they become caught up in a war zone as a consequence of an invasion by Russia. A year later, as we outlined in a Beyond Nuclear press release, those risks have become a reality. And in recent days, the scares and close calls have ramped up again.

Just last week, cruise missiles flew dangerously low over the South Ukraine nuclear power plant in the country’s western region. Then alarms were raised as observers noticed an alarming drop in the water level of the Kakhovka Reservoir, on which the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant depends for its essential cooling water supply.

A missile strike or loss of cooling water are just two of the many scenarios that could lead to a nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine. Others include loss of electricity supply, human error or sabotage. The conditions of war just make any and all of these outcomes far more likely.

Indeed, these latest close calls and others prompted a recent statement by the head of Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Inge Paulini, who warned that an incident at one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants would have, “far-reaching consequences as long as the war continues.” And yet, she pointed out, “this danger already seems to be receding into the background of public awareness.”

Indeed, it has been a consistent pattern in the press not to take nuclear power risks seriously. Instead, the media publishes story after story, planted there by a well-orchestrated worldwide nuclear industry campaign, about the benefits of expanding nuclear power.

The Ukrainian energy ministry would seem to agree. Even in the midst of this devastating war, it has just made a deal with the American company, Westinghouse, to purchase two new AP1000 reactors. It is of course unrealistic to envisage these actually being built during a war and, if ever operational, they would simply become additional lethal targets.

In Ukraine, we have seen Russia routinely attack the electric grid, leading to periodic loss of offsite power at all four of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant sites. Zaporizhzhia, in the contested southeastern part of the country, has experienced multiple disconnections from the grid. So far, the diesel generators have functioned until offsite power was restored. But they are reliant on a steady replenishment of fuel, which could be impeded were the plant to come under siege.

A ready supply of cooling water is also essential so the drain down of the Kakhovka Reservoir is a serious concern. Why this is happening is unclear, but it is thought to be a possible Russian military tactic to flood strategic areas, making them impassable to advancing Ukrainian troops.

The unimaginable stress that continues to be experienced by the depleted workforce at Zaporizhzhia adds to the possibility of a fatal human error. Human error was at the root of both the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in the United States and the 1986 Chornobyl Unit 4 explosion in Ukraine, without the contributing stress factor of war conditions.

The proximity of cruise missiles to nuclear plants is a nightmarish disaster waiting to happen, even if they are on their way to other targets, for now. But whether deliberate or accidental, a serious assault would release potentially enormous amounts of dangerous radioactive isotopes into the environment.

The reason damage from a nuclear power plant disaster is so serious is in part due to the longevity of the radioactive isotopes released and also because the fallout deposits these into the food chain by contaminating water, soil, crops and livestock.

Some of the enduring health outcomes include thyroid cancer, birth defects, still births, neonatal deaths, leukemias — especially among children — cancers and cardiovascular disorders. However, it should be noted that studies have also found elevated rates of leukemia in children living close to routinely operating nuclear power plants.

The international response so far has come mainly from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has called for safe zones around Ukraine’s nuclear power plants but so far has been unsuccessful in instituting these. And safe zones, while an essential first step, only prevent disaster resulting from a direct hit but are ineffective against loss of grid access or human error. Indeed, the IAEA has been struggling for more than two weeks simply to get a shift change of its observers at Zaporizhzhia accomplished. So far, conditions have remained too dangerous to allow this. “The Agency is doing everything it can to conduct the safe rotation of our staff there as soon as possible,” IAEA director, Rafael Grossi said.

Apart from being pre-deployed radiological weapons, nuclear power plants must, for safety reasons, be shut down when embroiled in a war. In Ukraine, where 50% of the country’s electricity is supplied by nuclear power, this means plunging an already terrified population into greater misery in the midst of winter. The lesson learned is that nuclear power, due to its inherent dangers, cannot serve as a reliable energy source. We must reject it as we do nuclear weapons and turn to other, more benign and renewable ways of supplying electricity.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.

Headline photo of Rocket in Kupiansk city (Kharkiv region of Ukraine) after Russian shelling. February 2023 by Олексій Мазепа / АрміяInform/Wikimedia Commons.

February 25, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

February 24 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “How New York’s Utilities Are Spreading Disinformation About Renewable Energy” • Worried about the climate crisis? Live in Brooklyn, Long Island, or Upstate? If so, your gas bill is paying for anti-climate disinformation. Nearly all of New York’s gas utilities are working to defeat our state’s nation-leading climate law, the 2019 Climate Act. […]

February 24 Energy News — geoharvey

February 24, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s top 11 Environmental Organisations – Submission to Senate – Nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.

Submission No. 14 Combined Environmental Organisations: Friends of the Earth Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Wilderness Society, Conservation Council of WA, Conservation SA, Nature Conservation Council (NSW), Environment Victoria, Queensland Conservation Council, Environment Centre NT and Environs Kimberley (PDF 1470 KB) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of these prudent, long-standing protections.

Proponents of the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 (The Bill) are seeking to remove these prohibitions, claiming this is needed to address climate change. However nuclear power is – at best ‒ a distraction to effective climate action.

It is important to note that promoters of nuclear power in Australia are not suggesting we build the nuclear technology that currently exists in the commercial world. The reactors that exist today are increasingly seen as a high cost and high-risk way to make electricity. They are also directly linked to high-level radioactive waste and nuclear security, weapons and terrorism concerns.

Nuclear promoters are staking their hopes – and Australia’s energy future – on technology which is uncertain and unproven. At the time of the 2021 Glasgow COP26, the UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on Climate Change Selwin Hart stated that nations seeking to base their climate response on technologies that have not yet been developed are “reckless and irresponsible.”1
The good news about the renewed nuclear discussion is that it highlights that business as usual with fossil fuels is not an option. The bad news is the very real risk of delay, distraction and a failure to advance a just energy transition.

In response to the 2019 federal inquiry by the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy into the pre-requisites for nuclear power, over 60 Australian organisations representing millions of Australians, and including trade unions, Indigenous, environment, health, faith and peace groups, signed a joint statement opposing nuclear power:

“Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation.
The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia.
There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society.
Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition. Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.
Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:

Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.

Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.

Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.

Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.

Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.

Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy.

Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.

Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).

Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.

Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.

The path ahead: Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology.
We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future.
Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”……………………………………………………………………

Australia cannot afford to lose more time on energy ‘culture-wars’ or on the false promise of unproven and non-commercial technology.


The former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Allison Macfarlane, provided a further reality check in 2021 stating, “when it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late.”9


Wishful thinking is no substitute for real world evidence and action, or for effective climate action.


Renewable energy exists in the real world and this is the crucial decade when real climate action is urgently needed to make the required transition to a low carbon future.

It is our considered view that the pursuit of nuclear power would delay and undermine efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions and address the challenges and opportunities of climate change.


Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.

Recommendation:
Our groups call on the Committee to support effective climate action by recommending against the proposed Bill and reaffirming support for the existing and prudent federal nuclear prohibitions.

{This lengthy submission goes on to provide more detail on the topics mentioned above, and on economics, small nuclear reactors and other “advanced nuclear technologies, waste problems, security and weapons prolifertaio risks. ] more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 24, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Environment House – Submission to Senate – Nuclear power unwanted, will delay climate action, is expensive and dangerous

Submission No 12.Australia needs effective climate action. Any action to introduce nuclear power would slow
the transition to a low-carbon economy. It would increase electricity costs and unnecessarily
introduce the challenges and risks associated with high-level nuclear waste management
and the potential for catastrophic accidents, with profound intergenerational implications
for Australians.


Nuclear is also the most expensive energy option. Since 2010, the cost of wind and solar PV
has decreased by 70‒90% while nuclear costs have increased by 33%. Nuclear power is the
one energy source with a ‘negative learning curve’ ‒ it has become more expensive over
time, with profound intergenerational implications for Australians.

We have better options to generate energy. The increasing take up rate for the installation
of solar PV systems in Australia on homes and businesses already shows that renewable
energies have the capacity to contribute significantly to energy generation and these are
very popular with the Australian people.

Introducing nuclear power is a slow process. It can take decades to build. Also, nuclear is
dangerous. Either through human error, disaster, or as a military target the catastrophic
consequences of a nuclear disaster would permanently pollute.

Most importantly, there is no proven solution for managing high-level nuclear waste
produced in power reactors.


Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated by climate
change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage,
drought, and jelly-fish swarms.


Nuclear is unwanted by the general public. There is long standing popular opposition to
nuclear power in Australia because of the issues above as well as the unsolved problem of
nuclear waste and the link to nuclear weapons.

Alternatives like renewables, storage and energy efficiency are faster, cheaper and easier to
deploy and enjoy much more public support.


Nuclear power could not in any way facilitate Australia’s energy transition ‒ it could only
delay the transition and make it more expensive and contentious. Nuclear power would
unnecessarily introduce risks of catastrophic nuclear accidents and military or terrorist
attacks. It would inevitably bequeath future generations with streams of high-,
intermediate- and low-level nuclear waste.


We urge all politicians and political parties to focus on the transition to a low-carbon
economy and to reject nuclear power because it is too slow, too expensive and too
dangerous. Instead, we need to hasten the transition to a low-carbon economy with a focus
on renewable energies.
Jo Bower
Secretary  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions

February 24, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Friends of the Earth Adelaide – Submission to Senate – nuclear power an unrealistic distraction

Submission no 9 to the Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
We are responding to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee’s inquiry
into the “Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy
Prohibitions) Bill 2022”.


The purpose of the Bill is to remove Australia’s ban on nuclear power. Although superficially
such an amendment might seem innocuous, because it would not in itself lead automatically or
inevitably to the construction of nuclear power plants, in fact it would be pernicious for the
following reasons:

1) It would divert attention from the immediate need for an urgent response to climate change.
Even if a decision was made today to introduce nuclear energy to Australia, not a single kilowatthour
of electricity would be generated from nuclear reactors for over a decade. But the climate
cannot wait that long. Fortunately, there are proven and realistic alternatives that can be acquired
much sooner and much more cheaply, especially in a country as rich in renewable energy
potential as Australia.


2) It would mislead the public into thinking that nuclear energy might be a realistic alternative for
Australia. Viewed objectively, both the historical record and the current status of nuclear power
demonstrate that nuclear energy is neither reliable, cost effective, nor fit for purpose in the
Australian context. If there is any argument for the use of nuclear power, it only applies to
countries which already have nuclear power plants and which need to make a decision about
whether or not to continue operating existing plants. In that case, given that the upfront cost of
existing plants has already been sunk, there may be an argument for continuing their operation
while shifting to a 100% renewables-based zero emissions energy system. However, constructing
new plants just diverts investment from cleaner and more cost-effective alternatives.

Some people who promote nuclear power are sincere, but misinformed or deluded. Others are
quite cynical. There are those who recognise that by promoting nuclear power they can serve
their own interests by delaying the energy transformation and prolonging an energy system which
is based on large-scale centralised generation and the use of fossil fuels. Then there are those who
promote nuclear energy to give them a point of strategic difference with their political opponents.
They are looking for another angle on the climate wars that have blighted the energy policy
landscape for over a decade.

Australia cannot afford to give credence to naïve or cynical arguments in favour of nuclear
power. We must rapidly shift from an energy system based on fossil fuels to a system based on
renewable energy backed by various forms of storage (e.g. batteries and pumped hydro). This
requires governments, industry and the general public to be highly focused on real solutions. The
last thing we need is for vested interests and nuclear true believers to muddy the waters with
fanciful talk of nuclear power.
The best way to send a clear message to industry and the community that Australia’s future lies in
renewable not nuclear energy is to maintain the ban on nuclear power.
See the notes and references listed below for background and supporting argument.
Philip White
Friends of the Earth Adelaide
adelaide.office@foe.org.au

Notes and References

  1. Nuclear energy is too expensive and will come too late………………………….
  2. Nuclear energy is a barrier to renewable energy……………….
  3. There are realistic alternatives………………..
  4. A few persistent myths
    4.1 Baseload Power
    ‘Baseload power’ is an outdated notion promulgated by nuclear and fossil fuel apologists in order
    to mislead policy makers and the general public………….. 4.2 Lessons of the war in Ukraine………… 4.3 All the other problems with nuclear energy still apply..Nuclear energy generates waste that must be isolated for millennia………… more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 24, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Electrical Trades Union of Australia Submission to Senate : Nuclear power a dangerous and costly distraction.

Submission no. 3.

I write on behalf of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia with reference to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022.


The ETU has a long history of opposing the nuclear industry that began when returning servicemen who were ETU members shared their experiences of the atrocities of World War II and through the democratic processes of our Union voted to adopt the Unions policy of opposition to this industry. That policy has been revisited many times since, as the Union kept abreast of developments in the nuclear industry as well as learned of the far-reaching impacts of the many catastrophic nuclear incidents that have occurred since and the worrying issues of waste management and the connection to weapons industries.
I enclose our September 2019

I enclose our September 2019 submission to a previous federal inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy. All the matters contained in that submission continue to be relevant today. Since our submission, many risk factors such as the high cost and slow build times, the insurance risk and the intractability of waste management have only increased.
This inquiry is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real effort needed to rapidly decarbonise the Australian economy in a manner that delivers secure jobs, social justice, cheaper energy and lower emissions.
The Australian people neither need, nor want a nuclear future.

See ETU 2018 Submission Electrical trades Union of Australia dispels the hype about Generation IV Nuclear Reactors  https://antinuclear.net/2015/09/21/electrical-trades-union-of-australia-dispels-the-hype-about-generation-iv-nuclear-reactors/

more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 23, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Noel Wauchope. Submission to Senate calls for retaining Australia’s nuclear bans.

Submission no. 102 to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications. Regarding Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 – Noel Wauchope

Australia’s prohibition of the nuclear industry has served us well.  We are among the majority of nations that are not burdened with the costs, the toxic wastes, the safety and security problems, and the weapons proliferation risks that burden the minority, the 32 countries that do have nuclear power. Australia is lucky in that regard.

But we’re unlucky in that Australia is the continent most at risk from global heating.  We’re experiencing right now the weather extremes that herald rapid climate change.  So, the time for Australia to act – is NOW.     In 20 or 30 years – it will be too late.   But 20 or 30 years is the (optimistic) time frame for getting nuclear reactors operating – whether they be large or small reactors.  That is, of course, assuming that nuclear reactors would really be effective in cutting greenhouse emissions, –  a questionable assumption, anyway. 

The push in Australia is for small nuclear reactors (SMRs)  . We must remember that with small nuclear reactors, there needs to be a number of them, to produce anything like the amount of energy that a large nuclear reactor produces.  So for Australia the small nuclear reactor plan would mean an absurdly large number of these SMRs to be brought into operation very quickly, across the nation, to have any effect on reducing greenhouse gases.

We also need to remember that these SMRs are still only in the design phase – not operating on any land in the world. Is Australia to be the guinea pig for trying out an expensive experiment?

In the meantime Australia is a leader in adopting renewable energy technologies, both large scale and small. Wind and solar power are here NOW – faster and ever cheaper to install, with constantly improving battery systems for back-up.

My worry is that Australia’s resources,human, financial and physical, could be redirected away from critically needed energy conservation and renewable systems, towards an expensive and untested nuclear power system.

This distraction from practical and clean technologies   would also bring the problems of long-lasting radioactive waste, and of nuclear facilities as a target for terrorism.

The experience of other countries should provide a salutary lesson for Australians.   France – the much touted nuclear power champion,  had a very worrying time in recent summers –   nuclear reactors cutting back due to heat problems and water shortage.  France is still struggling in their winter, and now has to import electricity.  If France’s nuclear fleet can’t cope with summer heat, what hope has Australia got?

All the nuclear countries are struggling with the problem of disposal of nuclear wastes. Finland’s much vaunted underground disposal facility, (at enormous cost) will barely have enough space for Finland’s own nuclear wastes, let alone anyone else’s.   Small nuclear reactors do produce a smaller percentage of wastes, but so highly toxic that they form a big problem, too

While most big nuclear reactors world-wide are placed near the coast, vulnerable to sea-level rise, that doesn’t make small nuclear reactors safer. The safety plans for small nuclear reactors are quite confusing.  For example, there’s a strong suggestion that they should be placed underground – a supposedly safer and more secure location.    But what if there’s a flood?

If Australia maintains its nuclear prohibitions, our direction towards a clean energy future is clear.   Removal of these bans would bring not only a plethora  of  pro-nuclear promotional advertising, but the beginning of a costly experiment in an old technology, nuclear power, whose time is over –   the SMR drive is its last gasp.      All this at a time when Australia desperately needs to take clean energy actions – to both reduce the rate global warming and adapt to the impacts of climate change. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 23, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

The US Can Secretly Rotate Nuclear Warheads Through Australia

And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.

Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.

22/02/2023 BY PAUL GREGOIRE,  https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-us-can-secretly-rotate-nuclear-warheads-through-australia/

After a midmorning break on budget estimate proceedings, defence secretary Greg Moriarty delivered a response to a question put by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John earlier in the day, which has since escalated the current debate over Australia relinquishing sovereignty to the US.

Steele-John quizzed Moriarty, on 15 February, as to whether B-52 bombers that will be “cycling through” the country, following the US Army having built storage space for six such fighters as part of its upgrade of RAAF Base Tindal, “will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable”.

“It’s clear that stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed,” advised Moriarty, adding that this treaty, nor that of non-proliferation, prevent foreign aircraft visiting or transiting local airfields or airspace.

According to the defence head, “successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms”.

And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.

Unimpeded access

When Steel-John further queried Moriarty as to whether this could see nuclear weapons transiting, Wong intervened stating that the question involves talk of “rotational forces under an agreement with another government”, so she’d like to provide an answer after the “opportunity to consult”.

The pre-prepared response later delivered by Moriarty included the admission that “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005”. And over this time, Canberra has respected Washington’s policy of warhead ambiguity.

Moriarty added that this policy is in line with the 2014 Force Posture Agreement between the two nations, which provides the US with unimpeded access to certain local military facilities, of which it gains operational control over when it’s carrying out any construction activity at such a site.

The FPA officially established that US troops rotate through the north of Australia, with their number now having grown to 2,500 marines annually, as well as having improved interoperability between the nations’ air forces. And it’s this agreement that’s led to the construction of a B-52 storage site.

Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.

Ambiguity abounds

“As I understand from that, secretary, the government’s reading of Australia’s treaty obligations does not prohibit nuclear armed B-52s from being temporarily present in Australia,” Senator David Shoebridge suggested to Moriarty following his explanation of the opaque US stance on warheads.

However, at this point, Wong cut in on what appeared to be a fairly straightforward assessment coming from the Greens senator in regard to what the defence secretary had just explained.

“There’s no suggestion,” the foreign minister countered. “No one at this table has talked about nuclear armed B-52s.”

Wong then reiterated some of the points made by the defence secretary that clearly led to Shoebridge’s assumption: Canberra has long understood and respected “the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying” and this doesn’t impinge on our international obligations.

Shoebridge then framed it in a different way, as he asked whether Defence considers this nation isn’t under any obligation to prevent nuclear armed US bombers from entering if they’re not a “permanent presence”. However, the minister, again, claimed he was “reading more into it”.

Then, after further reasonable prodding from the Greens member, Wong, quite tellingly, explained that she and the defence secretary weren’t in a position to go any further than the answer that was provided, and she then implied it was unfair to the community to posit further “hypotheticals”.

Whilst initial diplomatic moves made by Wong since taking over the foreign affairs portfolio have served a modicum of hope that the mounting tensions between Beijing and Canberra might be allayed, her December visit to the US saw this dashed.

Wong and defence minister Richard Marles were in Washington to meet with US secretary of state Antony Blinken and defence secretary Lloyd Austin late last year, as part of the annual AUSMIN conference, which had a focus on countering China’s “destabilising military activities” this time.

And the conference saw Austin extend an invitation to Japan – which is a part of the QUAD security arrangement, along with this country, the US and India – to join in the US Force Posture Initiatives, which are the operational arrangements established under the FPA, on Australian soil.

The resurrected QUAD has become of increasing importance with its new focus on Beijing. In fact, Anthony Albanese’s first act as prime minister was to fly to Japan for a QUAD meeting, while the following month saw him in Madrid for a NATO conference, which had China on its agenda.

And while the Albanese administration hasn’t repeated the hawkish ravings that former PM Scott Morrison and defence minister Peter Dutton were spouting at the end of their reign, the US presence in Australia, likely guarantees involvement in a war with China prior to any official decision.

Ending at the starting line

Following Wong’s explanation that all that could be said had been, Shoebridge put it to Moriarty that he understands that Australia doesn’t challenge the US on warhead ambiguity, and he then asked whether our treaty obligations aren’t breached by B-52s potentially carrying nuclear arsenal.

In response, the minister became even more ruffled than she had been prior, and she reiterated that the various treaties aren’t being threatened.

Wong then accused Shoebridge of drumming up concerns, to which he countered that he wasn’t “fearmongering” and put the question to the defence secretary one more time.

“I think the minister has outlined Australia’s treaty obligations,” Moriarty told the Greens senator, as he brought the exchange regarding B-52s to a close.

“As I said, under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which we are fully committed, stationing of nuclear weapons is prohibited.”

February 23, 2023 Posted by | secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »