UN calls on OECD nations to quit coal by 2030, reach net zero by 2040 — RenewEconomy
In case they missed the message from the IPCC, UN chief delivers the cold hard facts on climate and fossil fuels, and calls for a Solidarity Pact. Who’s in? The post UN calls on OECD nations to quit coal by 2030, reach net zero by 2040 appeared first on RenewEconomy.
UN calls on OECD nations to quit coal by 2030, reach net zero by 2040 — RenewEconomy
Ray Tauss Submission – for health, safety, and future generations’ well-being – Australia’s nuclear bans should NOT be repealed
Submission No 67 to: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Environment and
Communications Re: Senate inquiry into nuclear power
Nuclear power begins with uranium mining
Nuclear power generation uses uranium. Mining of uranium produces wastes. Wastes can be used for the
extraction of radioactive material. 300,000 years is how long the wastes must be safeguarded before they can be relatively safe for fauna and people. The wastes need to be safeguarded against emitting radiation to the
atmosphere and environment, and safeguarded against theft and safeguarded against being used for terrorism
and safeguarded against war.
Nuclear power plants
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to sabotage, bombing, implosion, explosion, fire, loss of coolant, earthquake and asteroid impact.
I submit that neither nuclear power nor other nuclear energy should be produced or used in Australia.
Personnel working or volunteering in the nuclear sector
Workers in the nuclear industry (including mining radioactive ores, mining waste storage, nuclear power plant
products and radioactive wastes) are subject to corruption, dishonesty, bribery, persuasion, blackmail and illegal dealings. Any single one of these attributes compromises the safety of a nuclear plant, and compromises the integrity of protection from misuse of nuclear waste products.
I submit that removal of prohibitions on production of nuclear energy is deleterious to safe and healthy futures for people in Australia in this century and beyond and that prohibitions on production of nuclear energy must be maintained.
Management of wastes from nuclear power production
Nuclear wastes are subject to use in terrorist acts, in war, and in the production of energy and other outputs.
Nuclear wastes impose high storage and safe maintenance costs on the country where the wastes are. Wastes
from nuclear power production need to be guarded for some 300,000 years. Wastes carry the potential for
accidental and deliberate acts that can have catastrophic outcomes on human health, environmental health, and
public and private infrastructure.
I submit that hazards and risks associated with nuclear wastes would be exacerbated by production of nuclear
power in Australia and that those hazards and risks should be avoided by maintaining a total prohibition on
production of nuclear energy in Australia. I also submit that nuclear power should be prohibited in any country,
land area, sea area and terrestrial or non-terrestrial air space controlled or owned by Australia.
Risk to future generations
Radioactive products from mining of radioactive and uranium ores, and products of nuclear power generation
retain radioactivity at levels unsafe for human health as well as for human and animal environments for some
300,000 years. Dealing, storing, and safeguarding those ores, ore products, and the wastes from nuclear power
production will confer risks and costs on future generations of people and those hazards, costs, health and
environmental risks would be an wholly unreasonable imposition of all current and future generations.
I submit that the hazards, risks and safety costs imposed on future generations by any removal of prohibitions on nuclear energy creation and production would be unreasonable and inequitable for all future generations of
people.
I submit that the following Sections of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 should not be repealed:
Section 10
I submit that the following parts or Sections of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 should not be repealed:
Section 37J
Section 140A
Section 146M
Paragraph 305(2)(d) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Greg Chapman Submission – Nuclear power is dirty and its fallout lasts forever.
Submission no 66. To Senate Estimates Committee against Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
How many times do we have to remind ultra-conservative politicians that Australia doesn’t
need or want nuclear power stations or nuclear powered war machines?
Australia has more than enough sustainable renewable energy without having to resort to
dangerous and world-shattering atomic energy.
I live near Darwin River Dam – the water supply for Darwin. On the other side of the Dam is
Rum Jungle Uranium site. It is still radioactive after hundreds of millions of dollars of
remediation since it closed in 1971. Darwin Dam water is tested daily before it reaches city
taps. My bore water is never tested. Over 17,000 people down here have untested water
bores. I’ve had friends who died from unexplained cancers. This is the legacy of being
colonised by the UK and US for their militaries to make nuclear weapons.
Australia has several nuclear bomb testing sites still giving off high levels of radioactivity
because of our unequal ‘alliances’ with the UK and US.
Why does it seem to be that these ultra-conservatives want to make us part of the nuclear
industry and lobby for ‘clean’ nuclear energy when Australian governments make
arrangements with the UK/US to buy nuclear submarines and house B52s with nuclear
weapon capabilities?
Nuclear power is not clean or sustainable. It’s dirty and its fallout lasts forever.
Let’s say we agree to have nuclear energy. We would need to:
Consult fairly, openly and accountably with individuals and communities likely to be
affected;
Arrange constantly assessed assurance and insurance agreements locally, nationally
and internationally – including jurisdictional arrangements between the
Commonwealth and states/territories;
Provide occupational health and safety to a yet to be trained Australian workforce and
educate workers and their families on the dangers of reactor workers taking work
home;
Australia can’t depend on overseas workers to fill highly sophisticated scientific and
technical officer jobs. After 40 years of educational neglect, we can’t rely on other
countries to supply such employment skills and needs;
Have highly secure sites for nuclear facilities;
Allocate huge amounts of water for cooling and preventing meltdown;
Connect power infrastructure to the grid without jeopardising other energy
infrastructure;
Provide extremely safe transport for nuclear materials with warnings and signs
everywhere possible on the transport vehicles and roads used;
Safely decommission reactors – also requiring a huge, well-trained workforce and a
huge and well-trained public service to oversee this;
Be able to do what no other nuclear nation has yet done: safely manage and store
nuclear waste for thousands of years, and
Reassure our non-nuclear neighbours
Australia has colonised and ignored the basic needs and communal responsibilities of our
first nation people – as well as making war on other nations not toeing our white, mainstream
liberal dream of private, individual ownership. Can we really be trusted to use nuclear energy
for the social good of the world? How do we reconcile commissioning volatile reactor
stations in a highly unpredictable atmosphere of climate change? Will another Chenobyl help
us achieve a circular economy and zero waste in the near future – or ever?
Where we even put these monsters? Not in my backyard – that’s for sure! https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Nuclear power costs prohibitive
Michael Chamley, The Entrance MARCH 21, 2023 https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2023/03/nuclear-power-costs-prohibitive/
It seems any mention of cheap, clean renewables gets the dander up some areas, whether they be advocates for more coal and gas burning or, over the past two Forums, nuclear power plants.
Had Blind Freddy (hereafter “Fred”) been able to see, he could have referred his fellow acolytes to the failure of nuclear power plants at Three Mile Island in the USA, Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan, all frightful results.
However, almost as frightening is the misinformation these Forum inputs contained about the general use of nuclear power.
Firstly, generating costs: The UK has nine operational nuclear power plants, and 11,000 offshore wind turbines (not a reliable comparison place for solar).
In 2021 the cost per MW hour for wind generation was 37 pounds (A$67); the cost to generate a MW hour of electricity using nuclear was 100 pounds (A$181).
Cost to build: The UK’s latest nuclear power plant; Hinkley Point C; remains incomplete having started construction in 2017, with completion expected (after delays) in 2028.
The cost to date has been 32.7 billion pounds (A$67B), with costs having risen from the initial cost of 22 billion pounds (A$40B).
In the UK experts on energy are saying this station will produce the most expensive UK electricity ever.
Further, there is the added necessity for the power plants to be shut down for maintenance for extended periods. sometimes one-two weeks or more, when their generating capacity is offline, much like coal and gas generators now.
Of course the letters did not include this in their analysis of “intermittency”.
Large wind/solar farms are constructed in two-three years and wind farms cost $2-4M per MW hours.
I also refer Fred to the 2021-2022 Gencost report completed by the CSIRO and AEMO.
In it they stated that wind and solar was the cheapest form of electricity generation (as anyone with rooftop PV will attest), even when taking into account costs associated with storage (batteries or pumped hydro) and related transmission upgrade costs.
The cost of nuclear power would be the most expensive form of power at $16,000 per KwH to produce (Small modular reactors SMR’s Gencost report), with wind and solar under $2000 per KwH.
One of the parties at the coming election is advocating SMR’s for a street near you.
Gencost stated of SMR’s: “Following extensive consultation with the Australian electricity industry, report findings do not see any prospect of domestic projects this decade, given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost.
“Future cost reductions are possible but depend on its successful commercial deployment overseas.”
By that time, Australia will be powered by renewables by a mixture of wind, solar, pumped hydro/storage, hydro electric and battery storage – all clean, all sustainable and no radioactive byproducts to dispose of.
Judy Schneider Submission – keep Australia’s nuclear bans, use renewables, including tidal energy
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Submission 70
I wish to make a submission re lifting the ban on creating energy from nuclear sources.
Fortunately, we have not had a long history of nuclear production or disasters.
The ban on nuclear energy production was a great step forward in making Australia safe from impacts of another disaster.
Sure, we need more renewable energy resources and speed up our transition to less climate destroying fossil fuels. Some countries use biomass energy, but that creates pollution too.
Why don’t we use water – “our home is girt by sea”.
Tidal energy is a renewable energy powered by the natural rise and fall of ocean tides and currents. Some of these technologies include turbines and paddles. Tidal energy is produced by the surge of ocean waters during the rise and fall of tides. Tidal energy is a renewable source of energy.
Of course, such tidal plants would need to be constructed away from marine migration areas.
Australia has had problems in the past, e.g. Maralinga and where to dispose of https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Researchers urge mandatory scheme to ensure solar panels are recycled — RenewEconomy
New study calls for comprehensive “product stewardship scheme” for solar panels, that puts whole-of-life responsibility on shoulders of the producer. The post Researchers urge mandatory scheme to ensure solar panels are recycled appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Researchers urge mandatory scheme to ensure solar panels are recycled — RenewEconomy
This week’s nuclear news
A bit of good news Sir David Attenborough urges people to unite to save ‘nature in crisis’
Premiere of this so timely movie –
The Road to War – new film premiering in Australia is just so very timely – as Australia is currently foremost in nuclear news. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEU02LTJBxI&t=6s
World premiere– Melbourne at 6.30pm on 22 March at the Nova in Carlton. Then in Hobart on 23 March (not 24th as stated in trailer) at the State Cinema . Q & A panel with Bradbury and special guest, Bob Brown. Capri Theatre in Adelaide 29 March. Other cities and regional centres yet to be announced.
Christina notes. Australia’s splendid nuclear submarine goat rodeo – funny, but it’s really serious. Isn’t it wonderful how the men in opposing political parties can unite in hate and belligerence? Nuclear wastes 30 years away. So -no problem for present decision-makers – happily superannuated when the shit hits the fan.
AUSTRALIA.What the nuclear-powered submarine deal really means. Editorial Geppetto logic. AUKUS subs deal binds us to a country that can change its mind on whim. Port Kembla a nuclear submarine hub? Not such a great idea! Australian Strategic Policy Institute among the group of crooked “Think Tanks” funded by weapons companies in order to promote war. Sub-standard: AUKUS plan means more risks for Australia. Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled in the US. Uncle Sam, can you target my Tomahawk, please?.
Australia hasn’t figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines. Australia news live: Aukus subs deal includes commitment to dispose of nuclear waste; Greens say plan is ‘mortgaging our future’. Nuclear dump to be built on Defence land. Labor Premiers’ dispute over location for AUKUS nuclear wastes, – but planned Kimba waste dump is”now dead in the water”? ‘Send it to Woomera’: Premier McGowan cold on nuclear waste being stored in Western Australia. Spent Matters: The AUKUS Nuclear Waste Problem. Aukus nuclear submarine deal loophole prompts proliferation fears. Porky pies and half-truths from our USA- captured Prime Minister Albanese . Are these wildly expensive nuclear-powered submarines really in Australia’s best interests? Paul Keating savages AUKUS nuclear submarine deal as Labor’s worst since conscription in World War 1. Why is the Labor government determined to silence the Barngarla people, at the same time as Labor promotes the indigenous Voice to Parliament ?.
CLIMATE. Wiped out: Scientist’s ‘gigantic tsunami’ warning signals ‘grave threat’ to Sizewell C.. UN Secretary-General’s video message to the 58th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
CULTURE. Permission to speak?– Who gets to talk about nuclear power should not be controlled by the nuclear lobby
ECONOMICS. Despite UK government’s enthusiasm, nuclear power is just not a good investment. UK government is urged to “come clean” over the real cost of Sizewell C nuclear power station . EDF confirms nuclear power target for 2023, despite corrosion problems, and plummeting output in 2022.
A $18 million a job? The AUKUS subs plan will cost Australia way more than that. Australia’s Productivity Commission casts doubt on the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines.
ETHICS and RELIGION. Grief – Japan marks 12 years since Fukushima nuclear disaster as concerns grow over treated radioactive water release.
ENERGY. Taiwan phasing out nuclear power.
ENVIRONMENT. Campaigners claim permit change at Hinkley Point would kill billions of fish. UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt wants nuclear power classified as ‘environmentally sustainable’ . But is it?
HEALTH. Life on a nuclear submarine takes its toll.
MEDIA. “Atomic Bamboozle” Probes False Hopes for the Future of Nuclear Power. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUsPt_xUt7I
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. Britain does not have the capacity to support Australia’s plan to build its own nuclear submarine fleet – Rear Admiral. Transparent oceans – Technologies for detection of nuclear submarines will still be all too successful by 2050. Georgia’s big new nuclear reactors could be the ‘last built in the US‘ . World’s largest nuclear fusion reactor promises clean energy, but the challenges are huge.
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR. Japanese students’ nuclear abolition petition tops 2.5 million signatures. New Mexico says no to storing spent nuclear fuel as Biden touts nuclear energy: ‘The trouble is this is a forever decision’.
POLITICS.
- Fukushima victims feel left out.
- UK political row over ‘expensive and unnecessary ‘ spending on nuclear power stations. UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt accused of ‘£20bn gamble’ on nuclear energy and carbon capture . UK Chancellor blocks cheap renewable energy , while promoting expensive nuclear power. Scotland’s not-so-Green Freeports: Minister’s equivocal response leaves way open to nuclear manufacturing facility. Sizewell C nuclear plan slammed, despite the UK government’s greenwashing.
- Illinois grapples with the future of nuclear power.
- Ukraine aims to produce full cycle of nuclear nuclear fuel production by 2026, exports to follow.
- The AUKUS nuclear deal “stinks” – Australia’s former environment minister Peter Garret.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- Nuclear power eliminated from European Commission’s text on funding rules, amid heated disagreements between Europe’s nations.
- Changing dynamics of US nuclear alliances, and a brazen violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Watchdog Rafael Grossi pledges ‘demanding’ oversight of nuclear sub deal. Aukus nuclear submarine deal will be ‘too big to fail’, Richard Marles says. AUKUS nuclear submarine plan brings danger as it uses a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Chinese official asks if Australia’s Aukus nuclear submarines intended for ‘sightseeing’. Australia needs to rethink plan to buy nuclear submarines.
- Sociologist urges Japan to stop perpetuating nuclear colonialism.
- Saudi crown prince is plotting to get US nuclear secrets by playing the White House, Russia, and China off against each other, report says.
PUBLIC OPINION. Something Is Missing From Americans’ Greatest Fears. It’s the Bomb..
SAFETY. Incident. 400,000 gallons of radioactive water leaked from a nuclear plant in Minnesota.
SECRETS and LIES. Libyan general says uranium reported missing by UN nuclear watchdog IAEA has been recovered. Tons of uranium missing from Libyan site, UN nuclear watchdog tells member states. Alarm over 10 drums of uranium missing in Libya.
SPINBUSTER. SIX WAR MONGERING THINK TANKS AND THE MILITARY CONTRACTORS THAT FUND THEM. Lesson from Fukushima: Collusion in the nuclear domain. “Great British Nuclear” launch – an eccentric fraud by the UK government.
WASTES. The (Vancouver) Columbian Editorial Board: Congress must recognize urgency at Hanford. Dumping Fukushima contaminated water is a “cheap and dirty” approach that must be stopped.
From the archives. No country in the world has worked out what to do with its old dead, radioactive, nuclear submarines. UK’s costly struggle to deal with dead nuclear submarines. The daunting, long and untested effort to deal with UK’s dead nuclear submarines. What to do with dead nuclear submarines? A cautionary tale for Australia.
WAR and CONFLICT. Some countries plan to decentralize control of nuclear weapons in a crisis. Here’s why that’s dangerous. Seymour Hersh warns of potential US plan B in Ukraine. U.S. Army launches new headquarters in Poland . North Korea’s Kim led drills ‘simulating nuclear counterattack.’
Spectre of Maralinga hangs over Aukus nuclear waste for Indigenous communities
Sarah Collard and Donna LuSun 19 Mar 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/spectre-of-maralinga-hangs-over-aukus-nuclear-waste-for-indigenous-communities
Behind all the pomp of the Aukus submarine deal in San Diego there was a detail that could prove a much bigger obstacle than even the massive USS Missouri moored near the three leaders. Under the agreement, Australia will be responsible for storing high-level nuclear waste from the decommissioned reactors.
And that is no easy feat. The US and UK naval reactors that will power both the Virginia-class subs and the future SSN-Aukus boats are fuelled by highly enriched uranium-235.
Once removed and decommissioned, any spent fuel from naval reactors is usually reprocessed to extract usable nuclear fuel for civilian generation and the remaining radioactive waste concentrated. The Australian government has promised not to reprocess spent fuel, which means it will probably be sent offshore.
Overseas, the process typically involves extracting usable fuel such as uranium and plutonium, and then vitrification, in which radioactive waste is concentrated and melted down into a “big glass block” weighing tonnes, according to Dr Patrick Burr, a senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales. “It’s actually a very small volume, but it is extremely radioactive,” he said.
After this complicated and hugely expensive process has been completed, there remains one big question – where will this waste be stored?
Nuclear reactor fuel yields high-level waste, which is not only more radioactive. “When you have high-level waste, it is actually physically hot, so [you] need to think about thermal management as well,” Burr said.
As some experts have pointed out, Australia has not even found a permanent site to store low-level nuclear waste, let alone highly radioactive waste.
So far, the government has not given any details on that other than the defence minister, Richard Marles, saying it will be on land that is either owned by the defence department or to be acquired in future. Marles also said this won’t need to be solved until well into the 2050s.
But that is not enough to satisfy many Indigenous communities, who fear the prospect of high-level nuclear waste dumps on traditional lands, and for whom the spectre of British nuclear testing in the 1950s and 60s still looms large.
In South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula region, a proposed storage facility near Kimba for low-level nuclear waste has faced staunch opposition from traditional owners, as well as environmentalists and farmers, despite a ballot supported by about 60% of residents conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation chair, Jason Bilney, said the Barngarla people had not been consulted, opposed the plan and had been in a legal battle with the federal government against the proposal.
He said he believed any storage of high-level nuclear waste would not be suitable in that area given the lack of granite and rock to hold the toxic waste, which could take hundreds of thousands of years to break down. “The ground is dirt,” he said. “High-level stuff needs to be stored and contained within the solid rock formation and Kimba doesn’t have that.”
Bilney said many traditional owners in the region had a deep distrust and fear of defence testing and nuclear waste after the nuclear weapons testing conducted by the UK in Maralinga.
The tests caused many of the local Anangu Pitjantjatjara people to suffer from radioactive illnesses, with elders and family sickened and the land contaminated.
Bilney said his grandfather, who was from the Maralinga area, always remembered the trauma and the fear, which has continued through the generations.
“That’s why I’m so strong and so passionate about being an advocate for my people and all Indigenous people,” he said.
“There is still a big fear that that could happen again … It’s that generational effect and even now people are still passing away of cancers.”
Bilney said while the bomb testing was not the same as storage of high-powered uranium rods, that fear remains.
“It’s that generational effect. It’s people just dying from the effects of the atomic bomb and still suffering trauma. This is going to be stored into the earth. It’s going to destroy our way of life for us.”
He said there was a real concern that storage of nuclear waste on traditional lands and any restrictions on access could harm the cultural and spiritual knowledge that had been passed down for thousands of generations.
“It’s our biggest worry. We are the oldest culture for over 60,000 years and this is going to outlast it.
“We want to pass down to the next generation and to continue this for decades to come to protect and preserve our sites and our storylines and that connection to country. And if they put it on country, we won’t be able to share that and we will lose those storylines. It will sever those ties.”
One possible location could be a defence site within the Woomera region, an area spanning 122,000 sq km about 450km north-west of Adelaide. The area has long been used for nuclear testing and as a military base.
The Woomera prohibited area takes in the traditional lands the Maralinga Tjarutja and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yunkunytjatjara, as well as the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara, Arabana and Kokatha.
A Kokatha traditional owner and senior lawman, Andrew Starkey, said their traditional lands took in huge swathes from Ceduna to Woomera but that was not recognised by native title.
“Our country is a huge bit of South Australia,” he said. “It starts from the Port Augusta region up to Woomera, around to Coober Pedy and through Tallaringa down around to the west coast, back around through to Whyalla – that’s traditionally Kokatha country.
“Having to fight 20 years to be recognised over a piece of country that’s now going to be targeted to be used as a radioactive waste dump, we’re very concerned about this.”
He said he was strongly against any proposed nuclear waste storage facility in any defence site in his traditional homelands.
“We don’t want it and anyone with any common sense is going to say the same thing. We don’t want that in our back yard.”
He said there were still defence testing sites in the remote desert, with unexploded ordinances, rockets and materials dating back decades – in 2021 an unexploded rocket was found near Lake Hart, a culturally significant site.
“There’s a lot of historic waste that’s still lying around in the Woomera area from the very early days of when they were testing things. It’s bad enough that when we go out to our sites that we’ve got to dodge missiles that are lying around on our heritage sites.”
The federal government has been contacted for response.
$18 million a job? The AUKUS subs plan will cost Australia way more than that
The cost could come in below $300 billion, or easily approach $500 billion.
a large element of old-fashioned pork-barrelling involved.
war with China in the next few years (over Taiwan) isn’t a persuasive argument for submarines that won’t be delivered until the 2030s.
March 17, 2023, John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland https://theconversation.com/18-million-a-job-the-aukus-subs-plan-will-cost-australia-way-more-than-that-202026?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Australian governments have a long and generally dismal history of using defence procurement, and particularly naval procurement, as a form of industry policy.
Examples including the Collins-class submarines, Hobart-class air warfare destroyers and, most recently, the Hunter-class “Future Frigates”.
The stated goal is to build a defence-based manufacturing industry. But there is also a large element of old-fashioned pork-barrelling involved.
In particular, South Australia has nursed grievances over the shutdown of local car making, centred in the state, following the withdrawal of federal government subsidies. The closure of the Osborne Naval Shipyard in north Adelaide would be politically “courageous” for any government.
So the projects roll on, despite technical problems (the six Collins-class subs were plagued by problems with their noise signature, propulsion and combat systems) and cost overruns (the three Hobart destroyers cost $1.4 billion more than the $8 billion budgeted). The $35 billion plan for nine Hunter-class frigates may yet be abandoned given budget constraints.
All these previous ventures are dwarfed by the AUKUS agreement, which involves projected expenditure of up to $368 billion.
As Richard Denniss of The Australia Institute has noted, the precision implied by this number is spurious. The cost could come in below $300 billion, or easily approach $500 billion.
Military case lacking
The case for such a massive investment in submarines has proved hard to make in a simple and convincing way. The “Red Alert” articles published this month by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age has helped to raise alarm about China. But the warning Australia could find itself at war with China in the next few years (over Taiwan) isn’t a persuasive argument for submarines that won’t be delivered until the 2030s.
Other questions have emerged.
In different ways, former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull have questioned the sense of a renewed alliance with the United Kingdom. The UK in a state of obvious decline, and Labour leader Keir Starmer, likely to be Britain’s next prime minister, has been noticeably lukewarm in his support for AUKUS, saying: “Whatever the merits of an Indo-Pacific tilt, maintaining security in Europe must remain our primary objective.”
Then there’s the view, held by many experts, that what has made submarines such potent weapons in the past – stealth – is unlikely to endure. Underwater drones and improved satellite technology could make our subs obsolete even before they are launched.
What about the jobs?
In these circumstances, the easiest political strategy to sell the AUKUS package is to present it as a job-creation program.
This is an appealing path for the federal government, given Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s yearning for “an Australia that make things”. Albanese’s Twitter account has published tweets extolling the economic benefits of the deal, but none about what the submarines will actually do to make Australians safer.
The obvious response is that the 20,000 jobs the government says the program will directly create over the next 30 years will cost more than $18 million apiece.
But that actually understates how bad the case is.
Where will we find the skilled workers?
Australia already has a shortage of the type of skilled workers required to build the nuclear-powered subs: scientists, technicians and trade workers. Our existing training programs are unlikely to fill the gap. So, the new jobs will mostly be filled either by diverting skilled workers from other industries or by additional immigrants.
The government is grappling with the policies that can meet this existing shortage. Our migration program, for example, allocates extra points for technical skills in short supply, putting skilled workers ahead of people whose motive for migration is to be with their families and friends.
The “Job Ready Graduates” policy introduced by the Morrison government subsidises science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees, at the expense of humanities and social sciences. This policy is now under review, but may well be maintained in some form.
Such is the scale of the problem that the government’s pre-election commitment to deliver a White Paper on Full Employment (inspired the Chifley government’s 1945 White Paper) has been sidelined by a focus on how to increase the supply of skilled labour, through vocational education, immigration and delayed retirement. Hence the title of the “Jobs and Skills Summit” in September 2022.
There is no indication the shortage of skilled tech workers is going to be resolved any time soon. It is, then, a mistake to boast about the number of technical jobs that will be created by AUKUS.
It would be more accurate to say that, just as the massive financial cost of the submarines will come at the expense of spending on social needs, the workers required to build them will divert skills from addressing needs such as decarbonising the economy.
Perhaps, like previous submarine deals, this plan will be scrapped before consuming the stupendous sums of money now projected. But in the meantime it will divert the Australia’s government from addressing urgent domestic problems.
Jessica Wysser- Submission to Senate – Nuclear power a dangerous distraction from real climate action
To SenateCommittee on Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 65
The ban on nuclear power in Australia must remain in place. I support the ban and ask the Senate
Standing Committees to support the continuation of this ban. I am concerned that further nuclear promotion risks delaying the action Australia needs to address the challenges, and maximise the opportunities, of meaningful climate action.
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 engineer David Lochbaum states: “You need to solve
global warming for nuclear plants to survive.” Australia does not want or need a nuclear
reactor under these conditions as the country is already affected by climate change and we
can see that it is progressively worsening.
Nuclear power programs have provided cover for numerous weapons programs and an
expansion of nuclear power would worsen the situation. Former US Vice President Al Gore
neatly summarised the problem: “For eight years in the White House, every weaponsproliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program.
And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal … then
we’d have to put them in so many places we’d run that proliferation risk right off the
reasonability scale.”
Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed military or terrorist targets. The
current situation in Ukraine illustrates the risks: electricity supply necessary for reactor
cooling has been repeatedly disrupted by military strikes, posing serious risks of nuclear core
meltdowns. Prior to Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine, there have been numerous military
attacks on nuclear plants. Examples include Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in
1981; the United States’ destruction of two smaller research reactors in Iraq in 1991;
attempted military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980 –
88 war; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s
bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007.
Having a nuclear reactor opens the country up to the possibility of making Australia a target. Australians would never want or desire this.
Australia needs effective climate action now but 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 power is dangerous, expensive, slow and unwanted. Our energy future is renewable
not radioactive.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
For the only planet we have https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submission
Productivity Commission casts doubt on the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines
The Productivity Commission noted that for many years, the defence sector had received effective subsidy rates for domestic production of up to 300 per cent, compared to zero for most other parts of the economy.
It said that given the large sums of money involved in defence, more scrutiny from outside the sector was needed.
Australia should reconsider building its own defence equipment, review finds https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-should-reconsider-building-its-own-defence-equipment-review-finds-20230319-p5ctbc.html By Shane Wright, March 19, 2023,
The Productivity Commission has cast doubt over the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, using its major report into the nation’s economy to argue for a complete re-appraisal of how the country meets its defence needs.
In the same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed off on the AUKUS submarine project with the United States and Britain, at a cost of between $268 billion and $368 billion, the commission’s five-year review of productivity found that in most cases Australia was better off not developing its own defence production capability.
The commission’s report, Advancing Prosperity, made 71 recommendations across more than 1000 pages of analysis. It follows a long-term decline in Australia’s productivity growth rate, which over the past decade has slipped to its lowest level since the 1950s.
Part of the report focused on government infrastructure spending and procurement, particularly around defence, which it noted had for years suffered from “imperfect processes” and huge cost overruns.
It found there were problems in defence spending due to the complexity of much of the equipment, the need for a high-skilled workforce and the costs associated with integrating new technologies with old. This meant in almost all cases, Australia should avoid building its own defence equipment.
“Depending on the context, buying an already proven technology from overseas and not quickly, if ever, developing a domestic production capability is likely to be optimal in many contexts,” it found.
“A sophisticated domestic capability to use, store and maintain equipment would still be required regardless of where it was sourced from but would involve lower costs than domestic production and assembly.”
Under the AUKUS deal, Australia will obtain three Virginia-class submarines from the United States – to arrive in 2033, 2036 and 2039.
In the 2040s, Australia will build a new type of submarine, the SSN AUKUS, based on an updated version of the current British Astute-class submarine and featuring American parts.
The Productivity Commission noted that for many years, the defence sector had received effective subsidy rates for domestic production of up to 300 per cent, compared to zero for most other parts of the economy.
There was also less transparency around projects as governments cited national security grounds. But the commission said these reasons did not justify “the present level of opacity”.
On Sunday, Defence Minister Richard Marles refused to be drawn on the individual cost of the submarines to be supplied under the AUKUS agreement.
Since announcing the project, the government has been at pains to talk up its benefits to the Australian economy, particularly in South Australia and Western Australia.
Last Friday, Albanese said the submarines would create 20,000 jobs directly in Australia and “many tens of thousands” more through the broader economic impact of the project.
“What this will do is highly sophisticated manufacturing will lead to a renaissance of high-value manufacturing in Australia. That money, that economic activity stays right here,” he told ABC radio.
The Productivity Commission said the focus on local industry needs had added to the cost problems around many defence projects. It said that given the large sums of money involved in defence, more scrutiny from outside the sector was needed.
“Defence procurement is ripe for deep and disinterested scrutiny of its processes. There are strong grounds for re-thinking defence procurement, drawing on advice from those outside Defence,” it found.
“The productivity and efficiency benefits of better practices are large given the $270 billion of anticipated defence spending over the next decade.”
Apart from an outside examination of defence spending, the commission also argued all government spending needed closer inspection. It backed the public release of cost-benefit analyses of public projects.
The Grattan Institute’s transport and cities program director, Marion Terrill, said the growth in the number of “mega-projects” demanded more scrutiny.
She said two-thirds of the current major infrastructure projects under way across Australia are worth more than $5 billion, which meant the potential for cost blow-outs was increasing.
The $100 billion cost range for the submarine project meant it faced the same problems as a major infrastructure project.
“The larger the projects, the bigger the contracts, the greater the chance of a cost overrun and the size of that cost overrun being larger. We’ve got to the point where a $100 million project is little more than a rounding error,” she said.
Terrill said she backed the commission’s call for more transparency around public projects.
“We need to look at these projects in terms of taxpayers being shareholders, so it’s only fair that they understand why a decision has been made on their behalf but also the underlying assumptions around the costs and benefits.”
Marles on Sunday rejected suggestions that Australia had given the United States a commitment to assist in a war over Taiwan in return for the purchase of its Virginia-class submarines.
“The answer to that is, of course not. Of course not. And nor was one sought. I’ve listened to that conjecture from a number of commentators. It is plain wrong,” he said.
“What Australia would do or not in respect of any future conflict will be a matter to be considered at that time by the government of the day.”
What to do with dead nuclear submarines? A cautionary tale for Australia.
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with……
End game
To some extent, the Ministry of Defence is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. ………but the glacial pace of work …. is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Project to dismantle ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarines inches forward, Navy Lookout, 7 Feb 22.
There are currently 21 former Royal Navy nuclear submarines awaiting disposal, 7 in Rosyth and 14 in Devonport. Here we look at the process and the modest progress in efforts to dismantle them.
Kicking the can down the road ………. Unfortunately, successive governments failed to make arrangements for the timely disposal of these boats. In a less environmentally conscious era, filling the boats with concrete and sinking them in the deep ocean was the original plan but the disposal of nuclear waste at sea was banned by the London Dumping Convention in 1983. Planning for the dismantling of these submarines should have been started at that time, but only in the last 10 years has there been a serious effort to grip the issue.
Over time the nuclear regulatory frameworks have become ever-more demanding than when the submarines were conceived. Stricter rules have added more complexity and cost to the dismantling process, ironically adding delays and increasing the amount of nuclear waste awaiting appropriate disposal. HMS Dreadnought decommissioned in 1980, has now been tied up in Rosyth far longer than she was in active service. In the civil nuclear industry, operators are required by law to put aside funds and make plans during the life of the plant to pay for decommissioning. It would be prudent if a similar principle was applied by the MoD to all new nuclear submarine construction.
Besides the attraction of deferring costs in the short-term, a major cause of delays has been the selection of a land storage site for radioactive waste. Low-Level Waste (LLW) is stored at Sellafield in concrete-lined vaults and in 2017 URENCO Nuclear Stewardship Ltd at Capenhurst in Cheshire was selected as the interim site for storing the more dangerous Intermediate Level Waste (ILW). The Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPV) removed from the submarines are classed as ILW and will temporarily be stored in purpose-built buildings above ground. They will eventually be moved to a permanent underground Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)
Afloat storage
While awaiting dismantling, decommissioned submarines are stored afloat in a non-tidal basin in the dockyard. The 7 submarines in Rosyth have all had their nuclear fuel rods removed but of the 14 in Devonport, 10 are still fuelled. This is because in 2003 the facilities for de-fuelling were deemed no longer safe enough to meet modern regulation standards and the process was halted. Submarines that have not had fuel removed have the reactor primary circuit chemically treated to guarantee it remains inert and additional radiation monitoring equipment is fitted.
Apart from regular monitoring, once every 15 years each boat has to be dry-docked for a Survey and Docking Period (SADP) which involves hull inspection and preservation work.
Reasons to accelerate disposal
Cost. The expense of afloat storage and maintenance of decommissioned boats is rising – currently costing approximately £30M per year. Every further delay adds to this and will have to be funded from a defence budget that is much smaller in real terms than when the boats were ordered and built during the Cold War. The total disposal cost will be at least £3bn over 25 years and continue into the 2040s. (This is for the 27 boats listed above – Astute-class dismantling is not yet being considered.) All this effort and expense is a drain on precious MoD resources for zero operational gain with each delay adding to the cost.
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with and it is simply common sense to dispose of old equipment at around the same time their replacements come online. Responsible care of the hulks afloat means they pose minimal risk to the environment or local population, but a tiny risk does remain. This makes some people living nearby uneasy and provides another grievance for those ideologically opposed to nuclear submarines and Trident. The minimal environmental hazard they pose is sometimes exaggerated by media, politicians and campaigners to suit their own agenda. The old boats are also a rather uncomfortable reminder of the time when the RN had an SSN force approximately double the strength it is today.
Space. When HMS Trenchant is moved to 3 Basin at Devonport for storage, the basin will be at its licensed capacity. Currently, the MoD only has permission from the nuclear regulator to store 14 boats. Approval to hold 16 will be needed in order to accommodate HMS Talent and Triumph when they decommission. Storing more boats in Rosyth is not an option because of limited space in the basin which is also used for civilian vessels as well as by the aircraft carriers to access the dry dock. Once the purpose-built disposal facility at Devonport is up and running in the early 2030s, it will be more efficient (and likely deemed politically less sensitive than anything in Scotland).
Progress at Rosyth
The Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) finally started at Rosyth in December 2016, around 15 years behind schedule. A team of around 150 people are working on the site pioneering the two-stage process to remove radioactive waste. Swiftsure was the ‘pilot’ submarine for the project and stage 1 – the removal of LLW. This work was completed and the boat was sealed up and returned to afloat storage in the basin during August 2018. So far, 129 tonnes of mainly metallic LLW have been removed from Swiftsure and Resolution. Many of the older boats have asbestos lagging around pipes, which also has to be removed with exceptional care and disposed of in sealed containers. Stage 1 work on Resolution was completed on time in March 2020 and on budget.
Stage 1 work on Revenge started in March 2020 but was suspended on the 24th due to COVID lockdown and (almost) normal working was not resumed until June 2020……………..
Disposal at Devonport
Progress at Devonport is considerably behind that of Rosyth. The unplanned refuelling of HMS Vanguard added a six-month delay as Babcock engineers were diverted from the SDP to work on the more urgent SSBN refit. ………………..
End game
To some extent, the MoD is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. The modest progress at Rosyth in the last 5 years is encouraging but the glacial pace of work in Devonport is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Like so many problems in defence, the failure to dispose of the boats cannot be blamed on one person, government or company, rather a series of decisions made by many individuals that seemed justifiable at the time. There must be some sympathy for those working to deal with this legacy today, although the thrust of 2019 HoC Public Accounts Committee report on submarine disposal efforts can be summarised as saying “this is simply not good enough”. https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/
No country in the world has worked out what to do with its old dead, radioactive, nuclear submarines
In light of Boris’s new enthusiasm for lots of Rolls-Royce’s so-called “mini-nukes” to generate electricity, it should be better known that the Ministry of Defence has not scrapped any of its 21 similarly Rolls-Royce-powered old nuclear submarines, berthed for up to 40 years.
It has made a start dismantling the hull of one, but there are still no plans for dealing with the reactors beyond burying them. Indeed, no country in the world has properly made safe a worn out mini-nuke-powered ship or submarine.
Guardian 10th April 2022
The AUKUS nuclear deal “stinks” – former environment minister Peter Garret
Former Labor environment minister Peter Garrett has lashed the Aukus
nuclear submarine deal, calling the former Coalition administration’s
decision “the most costly and risky action ever taken by any Australian
government” and saying Anthony Albanese’s decision to back it was a
departure from established ALP policy.
The Midnight Oil frontman and longtime nuclear disarmament activist claimed the $368 billion deal
“stinks”, suggesting the money could be better spent and raising
concerns about how Australia will dispose of nuclear waste from the boats.
Guardian 17th March 2023
Australia needs to rethink plan to buy nuclear submarines
If the sale goes ahead, this would be a clear violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and open up a Pandora’s box
SCMP Editorial, 20 Mar, 2023
The Aukus alliance powers – Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – have revealed details of the controversial plan to equip Australia with eight nuclear-powered submarines in coming years. This does nothing to ease growing concerns about an arms race and a threat to peace and security in the region. The three countries are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
But the plan amounts to nuclear proliferation because, unlike the other two, Australia is not presently a nuclear power and will become the first to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The US is willing to share nuclear technology with a Pacific ally as part of its containment policy towards China.
No matter how the narrative is shaped around the defence needs of a security partner, this is proliferation. Where is the line to be drawn now? How are other nuclear powers to be restrained when it suits their geopolitical interests to export nuclear technology and weapons potential to other, non-nuclear countries?
Consider the real potential for nuclear proliferation through a loophole in the NPT that exempts fissile material for military use such as naval propulsion from scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This raises concerns among proliferation experts about the future diversion of exempt fissile materials to weapons production. This would make it difficult to avoid a nuclear arms race in the region……….. more https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3214086/australia-needs-rethink-plan-buy-nuclear-submarines
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
