Liberal supporters launch election ad campaign against Peter Dutton’s plan to build nuclear power plants
Liberals Against Nuclear say the policy would increase bureaucracy and impose ‘massive taxpayer-backed risk’
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, 18 Mar 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/18/liberal-supporters-launch-election-ad-campaign-against-peter-duttons-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants
A group of Liberal supporters has launched an advertising campaign against the party’s plan to build taxpayer-funded nuclear power plants, arguing it “betrays Liberal values”, divides the party and “hands government back to Labor”.
The new advocacy group Liberals Against Nuclear says it rejects the Coalition’s policy as it would require the government to borrow tens of billions of dollars, swell the bureaucracy and impose “massive taxpayer-backed risk”.
Peter Dutton’s proposal would involve eventually building nuclear reactors at seven sites across the country, mostly after 2040. In the short term, the Coalition says it would slow the rollout of renewable energy, attempt to extend the life of ageing coal-fired power plants and rely more on gas-fired power.
The Liberals Against Nuclear spokesman is Andrew Gregson, a former Tasmanian Liberal director and candidate who said he was not currently a party member but remained a supporter. He declined to say how many supporters the group had or name other members, but said those involved were concerned the nuclear policy was driving “free market and middle ground voters” to support “teal” and other independent MPs in seats the Coalition must win to return to government.
“We’re trying to save the party from a policy that will gift seats to their opponents,” he said. “Nuclear technology itself isn’t the issue. It’s the socialist implementation being proposed that trashes Liberal values.
“If nuclear energy is so good then the market will back it without massive government intervention.”
The group is running television, digital and billboard ads that argue “many Liberals are against nuclear”. One of the ads shows a woman reading a newspaper article that quotes the Nationals senator Matt Canavan as saying “nuclear fixes a political issue for us but ain’t the cheapest form of power” and cites a report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis that found the Coalition proposal would lead to a $665 increase in average power bills. The ads ask the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, to “please dump nuclear”.
Gregson said they would run across the country and be particularly targeted in marginal seats, including those held by teal MPs. He said the ads were aimed at the party, not voters.
Liberals Against Nuclear said polling had suggested only 35% of Australians backed nuclear energy, and that support collapsed once voters understood the policy details. Its website raises concerns about the policy driving up national debt and creating safety and security risks.
Gregson said dropping the policy would cause the Coalition a “couple of days’ worth of negative publicity” but would not cost it the election. “Nuclear power is the big roadblock preventing the Liberals getting to The Lodge,” he said.
Asked about the campaign on the Seven Network, Dutton said his policy was “based on the international experience” and claimed it would bring electricity costs down by 44% and provide “stability in the market”.
The Climate Change Authority, a government agency, found the Coalition’s proposal would add an extra 2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and make it “virtually impossible” for Australia to reach net zero by 2050, a position the opposition claims to support.
Labor has a target of 82% of generation coming from renewable energy by 2030, up from the current level of nearly 45%. The authority said that under the Coalition’s plan there would probably not be 82% of electricity from zero emissions technology – renewables and nuclear – until 2042.
Independent experts have suggested the Coalition policy would likely lead to household power bills being higher than under Labor’s policy as there would be less generating capacity competing in the grid. They have also said it would increase the risk of the electricity supply becoming unreliable at peak times as it was more reliant on old coal power plants that are nearing the end of their expected operating lives.
Peter Dutton interrupted mid-speech by anti-nuclear protesters
By Josh Hohne Mar 20, 2025, 9 News
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor have been interrupted by anti-nuclear energy protestors today in Sydney.
Dutton was addressing the Lowy Institute think tank when two protestors began heckling him.
“Why are you lying to the Australian people about the cost of nuclear,” one of the protesters said as he was escorted out by security and federal police.
He held a banner reading “Nuclear lies cost us all”.
After a pause, Dutton continued with his address.
Later in his speech about the Coalition’s election priorities, he was interrupted again by a man speaking from the sidelines……………………………………..
The protesters were part of the Rising Tide environmental group.
“The Coalition’s scheme to force nuclear into Australia’s energy grid is going to cost $600 billion to the taxpayer, add up to $1200 to people’s energy bills, and produce 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution by 2050,” Zack Schofield, one of the protesters, said afterwards.
Hours after interrupting Dutton, the same protesters disrupted another press conference, this time forcing Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor to relocate his media opportunity.
Schofield again interrupted Taylor.
Taylor quickly packed up his team and began relocating to another location.
Dutton and Taylor aren’t the first to be interrupted by protesters this week, with climate activists cutting off Treasurer Jim Chalmers during a pre-budget speech on Tuesday. https://www.9news.com.au/national/peter-dutton-interrupted-mid-speech-protesters-nuclear-energy/eaed0bf8-0e02-4617-b2de-1cab1c419830
Bob Carr says Aukus a ‘colossal surrender of sovereignty’ if submarines do not arrive under Australian control
Former foreign minister says it is ‘inevitable’ US won’t supply nuclear-powered submarines under Aukus.
Guardian, Ben Doherty, 20 Mar 25
Australia faces a “colossal surrender of sovereignty” if promised US nuclear-powered submarines do not arrive under Australian control, former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr has said, arguing the US is “utterly not a reliable ally” to Australia.
“It’s inevitable we’re not getting them,” Carr told the Guardian, ahead of the release of a report from Australians for War Powers Reform that argues the multibillion-dollar Aukus deal had been imposed upon Australia without sufficient public or parliamentary scrutiny.
“The evidence is mounting that we’re not going to get Virginia-class subs from the United States,” Carr said, “for the simple reason they’re not building enough for their own needs and will not, in the early 2030s, be peeling off subs from their own navy to sell to us.”
Under “pillar one” of the planned Aukus arrangement, it is proposed the US would sell Australia between three and five of its Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines in the early 2030s before the Aukus-class submarines were built, first in the UK, then in Australia
However, the US has already forecast it might not have capacity to spare any of its Virginia-class boats, the Congressional Research Service instead floating a proposal in which: “instead of … them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia”.
Carr said that alternative would leave Australia without Australian-flagged submarines and no control of when, and to where, those boats were deployed.
“It involves the total loss of any sovereign submarine capacity and, more than that, a colossal surrender of Australian sovereignty in general.”
Australia, Carr said, needed to look past the “cheerful flag-waving propaganda” of the proclaimed Aukus deal, saying the alternative likely to be presented by the US would leave Australia “totally integrated in American defence planning and we’ll be hosting even more potential nuclear targets”.
Australians for War Powers Reform, a group that advocates for parliamentary oversight of the decision to send Australian troops to war, launched a report on Thursday morning arguing that the Aukus deal – signed by the Morrison government in 2021 and adopted by its Albanese-led successor – had been instituted without any public or parliamentary scrutiny.
“The public and the national parliament have been kept in the dark every step of the way,” the report argues.
“The Aukus pact has become a textbook example of how to disenfranchise the community, providing almost no transparency or democracy in a sweeping decision which will affect Australia for decades.”
Aukus and the Surrender of Transparency, Accountability, Sovereignty argues the multi-decade, multibillion-dollar Aukus deal was presented to the Australian public without any discussion, consultation, and without parliamentary debate. The current forecast cost of “pillar one” of Aukus – to buy US Virginia-class submarines and build Aukus subs – is $368bn to the 2050s.
The report raises concerns over vague “political commitments” offered by Australia in exchange for the Aukus deal, as well as practical concerns such as where and how nuclear waste would be stored in Australia.
“Aukus has no legitimate social licence because the public has been shut out of the process, and as a result, scepticism and cynicism have increased.”
Dr Alison Broinowski, AWPR committee member and a former Australian diplomat, said Australia’s agreement to the Aukus deal was manifestation of a structural flaw in Australia’s democracy, where decisions to go to war, or to make consequential defence decisions, were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny or public debate.
Broinowski said Aukus was acutely significant because of its size and potential consequence “and yet the same failure to be frank with the people characterises every government this country has had, during every war there’s been”.
She argued Australia had no control over Aukus. “We don’t know what Trump’s going to do and we have no control over what he does. And so we’re left hoping for the best, fearing the worst and with absolutely no way of controlling or influencing what happens, unless we first get ourselves out of Aukus.”……………………………….more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/19/bob-carr-aukus-submarine-deal-us-australia-relationship
Investors take aim at Coalition as nuclear debate hits boiling point
The Age, By Nick Toscano, March 19, 2025
Major investors have clashed with the Coalition ahead of the federal election, warning that slowing the rollout of renewable energy will push up electricity bills by increasing the need to call on failure-prone coal plants and expensive gas-fired generators.
Debate about Australia’s clean energy shift has been thrust to centre stage as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton campaigns to limit renewables to 54 per cent of the electricity grid and build a fleet of government-owned nuclear generators across the mainland.
If it wins the election, the Coalition would roll back Labor’s 2030 climate commitments, including its target for renewables to make up 82 per cent of the grid by 2030, which experts believe is unlikely to be met.
However, in a significant intervention, a group of large investors including US asset giant BlackRock, France’s Neoen, Australia’s Macquarie Bank and the Andrew Forrest-backed Squadron Energy has ramped up its push against policies that would restrict the expansion of wind and solar and keep the grid heavily tied to fossil fuels for longer.
“Australia needs more renewables, not less, to achieve sustained power price reductions,” said the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents 18 global and local investors with a portfolio value of $38 billion across Australian renewable projects.
Households have been hit with double-digit power bill increases since 2022, the year that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unleashed a global energy crunch. Another power price rise, partly due to recent stretches of low wind and rain limiting renewables’ output, is set to take effect in Queensland, NSW and South Australia from July this year.
But bills would be up to $417 a year higher if not for renewable energy and batteries, the investor group’s analysis shows, as utilities would be forced to more frequently fire up their gas-powered generators, which are among the most expensive suppliers to the grid.
Separate industry modelling released last week by the Clean Energy Council suggests the Coalition’s push to limit renewables would require at least a three-fold increase in gas-powered electricity costs by 2030.
Investors have also expressed concern at the Coalition’s proposal to extend the lives of ageing coal-fired power stations beyond their closure dates in the 2030s and 2040s until nuclear plants were ready to replace them, which could raise risks of sudden breakdowns, power shortages and price spikes.
“Running a grid using fossil fuels rather than renewables would increase total system costs, weaken energy security, and place greater strain on ageing coal and gas infrastructure,” the investor group said………………………………..more https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/investors-take-aim-at-coalition-as-nuclear-debate-hits-boiling-point-20250318-p5lkg8.html
Australian nuclear news 18 -24 March
Headlines as they come in:
- Dutton’s seat a target in $2m union war against nuclear.
- Coalition must provide clear answers on nuclear policy.
- Nuclear Power In Australia: A Little More Conversation?
- Activists are spending big on pro-nuclear ads, but it’s Dutton’s silence that has Labor’s attention.
- Liberals must abandon unpopular nuclear policy and return to winning formula.
- ‘Vandals in the White House’ no longer reliable allies of Australia, former defence force chief says.
- Climate Activists Protest Liberal Nuclear Speeches In Sydney.
- Liberal supporters launch election ad campaign against Peter Dutton’s plan to build nuclear power plants
- International ‘nuclear tombs’ are being built, but how do we warn future generations of what’s inside?
- Peter Dutton interrupted mid-speech by anti-nuclear protesters
- Bob Carr says Aukus a ‘colossal surrender of sovereignty’ if submarines do not arrive under Australian control.
- Investors take aim at Coalition as nuclear debate hits boiling point
- New advocacy group Liberals Against Nuclear calls on Peter Dutton to dump nuclear promise
- Nuclear policy blocking Liberal gains.
- “Desperate” Liberals urge Dutton to “stop this stupid nuclear palaver”
- Australia: Liberals Against Nuclear launches campaign to return party to core values.
- Peter Dutton is ‘desperate to avoid scrutiny’ on nuclear energy plans –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3baw-B49d4
Nuclear policy blocking Liberal gains
Liberals Against Nuclear, 19 Mar 25
A Redbridge poll released today confirms what Liberals Against Nuclear has been warning about: the Coalition’s nuclear energy position is actively preventing its path to an election win.
New RedBridge polling puts Labor ahead 51-49 on two-party preferred terms. The data reveals that despite the Coalition’s leadership’saggressive pro-nuclear campaign, voters aren’t buying it. Those believing nuclear energy is unsafe rising from 35% to 39% over the past year. Only 38% of voters believe nuclear would reduce power prices – barely moving from 37% a year ago
“The nuclear power policy is the single biggest roadblock preventing the Liberals from winning government,” said Andrew Gregson, spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear. “The Liberal Party’s nuclear fixation is alienating the very voters we need to win back.
“The numbers don’t lie. This policy betrays core liberal principles by requiring tens of billions in government borrowing, expanding bureaucracy, and imposing massive taxpayer-backed risk. It’s driving free-market centrist voters directly to the Teals and independents in must-win seats.”
RedBridge director Tony Barry, a former Coalition strategist, is quoted in today’s News Corp papers emphasizing that “the Coalition needs to return to its key equities of economic management.”
The data confirms the coming election will likely be decided by preferences, with both major parties struggling to reach the 76 seats needed for majority government. This makes winning middle-ground voters crucial – exactly the demographic being alienated by the nuclear position.
“We’re urging party leadership to pivot back to our core economic management strengths and abandon this policy that contradicts core principles.”
Media Contact: Andrew Gregson +61 432 478 066
www.liberalsagainstnuclear.au
“Desperate” Liberals urge Dutton to “stop this stupid nuclear palaver”
Jim Green, 18 March 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/desperate-liberals-urge-dutton-to-stop-this-stupid-nuclear-palaver/
The federal Coalition has gone silent about its plan to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia. But a new group called ‘Liberals Against Nuclear’ is frustrating the Coalition’s attempt to downplay its policy and wants the Coalition to ditch its nuclear policy before the election.
Announcing the group’s launch this morning, the Murdoch press reported:
“‘Desperate’ Liberal supporters have urged Peter Dutton to dump his $331bn nuclear promise, with fears the policy will drive voters to Teal and independent candidates in a tightly fought election.
“A coalition of voters, supporters and former officials will launch the new advocacy group, Liberals Against Nuclear on Tuesday through a series of ads set to be blasted on television, online platforms and billboards in targeted electorates.”
Spokesman and former Tasmanian Liberal director Andrew Gregson said:
“The people involved in this group are not doing it out of malice or anger but out of a desperation of sorts. They want to see the Liberals win government, and they are involved in a campaign against their own party. That’s not a comfortable place to be.”
Gregson added:
“Nuclear power is the big road block preventing the Liberals getting to the Lodge. This is big government waste that betrays liberal values, splits the party, and hands Government back to Labor. It’s time for our party to dump nuclear. This policy contradicts core liberal principles by requiring tens of billions in government borrowing, swelling the bureaucracy, and imposing massive taxpayer-backed risk.
“As John Howard said: “For Liberals the role of government should be strategic and limited.” Yet this nuclear policy gives us bigger government, higher taxes to pay for it, more debt, and less freedom as the state takes over energy production.”
Referring to divisions within the Coalition about climate science and renewable energy, Gregson said that nuclear power is “a policy that fixes an internal problem but hangs a weight around the country’s neck for decades to come” and that “it’s clever politics but incredible bad policy.”
Advertising war chest
Liberals Against Nuclear has already amassed a “significant” war chest to fund its advertising campaign, Gregson said. The campaign launch includes television advertising, digital content, and billboards.
A Liberals Against Nuclear media release warns that the nuclear policy “is driving free market and middle ground voters directly to the Teals and other independents in must-win seats” and that “recent polling shows just 35% of Australians support nuclear energy, with support collapsing once voters understand the policy details.”
The Liberals Against Nuclear website makes the following statements:
“The current proposal to build nuclear power in Australia fundamentally contradicts core Liberal values of lower debt, smaller government, free markets, and less government intervention.”
“The private market has made clear they won’t invest in building Australian nuclear reactors and they won’t insure it. This market rejection speaks volumes.”
“Nuclear power has never been built anywhere in the world without massive government subsidies. As true fiscal conservatives, we cannot support such an economically unviable energy source, which is expected to cost 331 billion over 25 years. We cannot be a party of subsidies. Subsidies are a policy one would expect from socialists.”
“Nuclear energy will require a massive new government agency, massive regulation, adding unelected bureaucrats and tens of thousands of public servants to the government payroll.”
Security risks
The Liberals Against Nuclear website states:
“The recent attempted terror attack at Chernobyl, when a drone loaded with explosives was flown onto the site, illustrates that reactors are targets especially when waste is stored onsite as would occur here (exploded waste would render a radius of at least tens of kilometres uninhabitable for 100,000 years).
“An oped by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute pointed out the “Opposition’s nuclear policy would increase defence risk”, because centralising power generation makes us more vulnerable to attacks including from China. Other parties have sometimes chosen to make Australia less safe in order to pursue their ideologies.
““We are a party which puts being practical above ideology and that keeps our citizens safe and secure.”
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group warned in a statement released in February that the Coalition’s plan to build nuclear reactors would leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage.
Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said:
“Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage. Modern warfare is increasingly focused on missiles and uncrewed aerial systems, and with the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target.”
Cheryl Durrant, a former Department of Defence Director, said:
“In the Ukraine-Russia war, both sides have given strategic priority to targeting their opponents’ energy systems, and Australia would be no different. So these nuclear facilities would necessitate expensive and complex missile defence systems as well as allocated cyber and counter-intelligence resources, making our security challenge more complex and expensive.”
Higher power bills and taxes
As of this morning, the Liberals Against Nuclear YouTube page had seven video advertisements. All of them refer to an estimated $665 increase in household power bills under the Coalition’s nuclear plan and express disbelief that the Dutton Coalition plans to massively increase power bills during a cost-of-living crisis.
“They’ve got to stop this stupid nuclear palaver,” one of the advertisements states.
The $665 figure may come from a study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis which found that household electricity bills could rise by $665 per year on average if nuclear energy were introduced in Australia. For a four-person household, the rise would be $972 per year.
A separate study by the Smart Energy Council study also found that Dutton’s nuclear reactors would add $665 per year to the average non-solar household’s power bill and that the rooftop solar systems of up to 12.5 million Australians would need to be shut off every day to allow nuclear to be shoe-horned into the system.
The most recent economic analysis was conducted by global consultancy firm Jacobs for the Clean Energy Council. It found that reliance on coal and gas in Australia while waiting for nuclear power would increase the average household bill by $449 per year plus an $877 increase for small businesses.
Most of the Liberals Against Nuclear advertisements quote Coalition MPs — current and former, federal and state — opposed to Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan.
One advertisement quotes former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull saying nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity generation, then cites the $665 figure, and asks if the Coalition “is trying to lose”.
Another advertisement quotes state Liberal/LNP leaders opposed to nuclear power, in Queensland, WA, Victoria and SA.
Another advertisement quotes NSW Liberal leader Mark Speakman saying that nuclear power is a trojan horse for the coal industry.
Another advertisement quotes former federal Liberal minister Chrostopher Pyne saying the nuclear debate isn’t about what’s feasible or necessary and that it is about political positioning.
Another advertisement quotes former NSW Liberal Deputy Premier Matt Kean saying that nuclear power doesn’t stack up on practical or economic grounds.
Another advertisement cites the CSIRO saying that nuclear power is twice as expensive as alternatives.
Another advertisement cites Queensland LNP Senator Matt Canavan saying that nuclear fixes a political problem for the Coalition but “it ain’t the cheapest form of power”.
Suicide note
If the Liberals Against Nuclear groups wants more fodder for its advertisements, there’s plenty to choose from.
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in 2022: “Right now, there’s a moratorium on nuclear power here in Australia and the Labor Party are totally opposed to it. I’m just not going to put Australia through the argument which doesn’t get us anywhere … and for the Labor Party to run around at the next election and get themselves elected on the basis of a scare campaign.”
Tony Barry, former deputy state director and strategist for the Victorian Liberal Party, describes the Coalition’s decision to make nuclear power the centrepiece of its energy and climate policy is “the longest suicide note in Australian political history”.
Former Liberal leader John Hewson says that Dutton may be promoting nuclear “on behalf of large fossil-fuel donors knowing nuclear power will end up being too expensive and take too long to implement, thereby extending Australia’s reliance on coal and natural gas”.
Liberal MP Bridget Archer says that nuclear power should be pursued only if coupled with a rapid surge in renewables and that nuclear power should not be used as an excuse to prolong fossil fuel reliance.
Peter Dutton said in 2022, while settling into his new job as opposition leader, that nuclear power is “not on the table” for policy consideration because he wants to reduce power prices, not increase them.
Malcolm Turnbull, in addition to noting that nuclear is the most expensive form of power, has also said that the “science denying” element in the Coalition is “crazy, and to some extent getting crazier”; that the nuclear policy is “bonkers”; that Peter Dutton is a “thug” who says “stupid things” about nuclear power; and that nuclear power’s only utility is “as another culture war issue for the right-wing angertainment ecosystem”.
An unnamed current Coalition MP says the nuclear policy is “madness on steroids”, another says the Liberal and National Party rooms are “in a panic” about the nuclear policy and “they don’t know what to do”, and another echoes Turnbull’s view that the nuclear policy is “bonkers”.
The Howard government tried to go quiet on its policy of promoting nuclear power in the 2007 election year and to paper over divisions within the Coalition — at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly expressed concern or outright opposition. The nuclear power policy was ditched immediately after the Coalition lost the November 2007 election.
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
Liberals Against Nuclear launches campaign to return party to core values.
Liberals Against Nuclear
A new advocacy group, “Liberals Against Nuclear,” launched today with an advertising campaign aimed at persuading the Liberal Party to abandon its nuclear energy policy position so it can win the coming election.
The group spokesman is Andrew Gregson, former Tasmanian Liberal director, candidate, and small businessman.
“Nuclear power is the big road block preventing the Liberals getting to the Lodge,” Gregson said. “This is big government waste that betrays liberal values, splits the party, and hands Government back to Labor. It’s time for our party to dump nuclear.
“This policy contradicts core liberal principles by requiring tens of billions in government borrowing, swelling the bureaucracy, and imposing massive taxpayer-backed risk.”
The campaign launch includes television advertising, digital content, and billboards questioning the Liberal Party’s support for nuclear. The ads highlight how nuclear energy requires billions in upfront government borrowing, with international experience showing inevitable cost blowouts.
“As John Howard said: “For Liberals the role of government should be strategic and limited.” Yet this nuclear policy gives us bigger government, higher taxes to pay for it, more debt, and less freedom as the state takes over energy production,” Gregson said.
The group warns that the nuclear policy is driving free market and middle ground voters directly to the Teals and other independents in must-win seats. Recent polling shows just 35% of Australians support nuclear energy, with support collapsing once voters understand the policy details.
The group warns that the nuclear policy is driving free market and middle ground voters directly to the Teals and other independents in must-win seats. Recent polling shows just 35% of Australians support nuclear energy, with support collapsing once voters understand the policy details. https://liberalsagainstnuclear.au/
Nuclear and related news – not just industry handouts
Some bits of good news –New Zealand launches largest-ever island rewilding to rescue 300+ species. Naturally Native-Water Vole Restoration. Merely Watching Scenes of Nature Can Reduce Pain, Says New StudyTOP STORIES
.
Towards a Eurobomb: The Costs of Nuclear Sovereignty. Europe’s ‘nuclear umbrella’ risks catastrophic escalation.
14 years since Fukushima nuclear disaster: Greenpeace Japan statement.
Nuclear power’s global stagnation.
Poisoning the well – The toxic legacy of Cold War uranium mining in western New Mexico.
The forever wars may be over, but Trump is no peacemaker.
Climate. ‘Global weirding’: climate whiplash hitting world’s biggest cities, study reveals.
AUSTRALIA.
- Australia’s Trump cards.
- Greens leader Adam Bandt says Australia should walk away from AUKUS in wake of Trump’s tariffs.
- Coalition’s nuclear plan most expensive option for Australia, former US climate official says.
- “Nothing but broken promises”: ICAN Ambassador, Karina Lester calls out Australia’s inaction on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
- More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2025/03/11/australian-nuclear-news-10-17-march/
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ATROCITIES. Chris Hedges: On the Precipice of Darkness – Normalizing genocide and the new world order. |
| ECONOMICS. US makes fresh push for World Bank to back nuclear power. |
| EDUCATION. The nuclear industry continues to infiltrate education. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Some Small Nuclear Reactors could bypass environmental review step under Arizona bill.EDF unveils fresh details on new fish deterrent technology to be used at Hinkley Point C. EDF’s salt marsh plans pause met with ‘great relief’ on either side of the Severn. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. Why is an ‘ethical’ investor funding arms companies? |
| HEALTH. They had a fairytale American childhood – but was radiation slowly killing them?Families sickened by radiation exposure want Congress to revive this key compensation – program https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icfLF6AVEQ |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Uranium fever collides with industry’s dark past in Navajo country. |
| LEGAL.14 years on: Justice at Fukushima remains denied. Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump. |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Rainbow Warrior arrives in Marshall Islands to call for nuclear and climate justice on 40th anniversary of Rongelap evacuation.Councillors oppose nuclear dump site near Louth. |
| PERSONAL STORIES. Life as a “displaced person” |
| POLITICS.High stakes as Iran nuclear issue reaches crunch moment. Great British Nuclear explains how it will mitigate risks to SMR programme – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/03/15/1-b1-great-british-nuclear-explains-how-it-will-mitigate-risks-to-smr-programme/Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy.Anas Sarwar U-turns on Scottish Labour nuclear weapons policy.Alarmed by Trump, South Korea mulls Japan-style nuclear option. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. ‘Ukraine will not recognize any territory occupied by Russia’: Zelensky. NATO-Russia Ukrainian War Ceasefire: To Be Or Not To Be? Putin Signals He’s Open to Ceasefire as Witkoff Arrives for Talks.Dialogue only viable option to solve Iranian nuclear issue.China, Russia back Iran as Trump presses Tehran for nuclear talks.Russia, China discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme at Beijing meeting. |
SAFETY. ‘Nervous and rushed’: Massive Fukushima plant cleanup work involves high radiation and stress.
What if a Fukushima-sized nuclear accident happened in Australia? –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrScaM8ChXk US report discusses possibility of nuclear submarine accident, if subs supplied to Australia.
State Police to Hold Major Radiological Incident Exercise with International, Federal, State and Local Partners.
Incident: Human error leads to water spill at Finnish EPR
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis. |
| SPINBUSTER. Let’s hear it for the ‘blockers’ – support common sense, not nonsense! Continued Propaganda About AI and Nuclear Power. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Delusional, ruinous and obsolete -the ITER nuclear fusion project.Elon Musk Announces ‘Massive Cyberattack’ Causing X Outage.Book Review: How Our Digital Infatuation Undermines Discourse.The Volunteer “Data Hoarders” Resisting Trump’s Purge. |
| URANIUM. Fukushima Remembered At URENCO’s Uranium Enrichment Plant Today in Cheshire. |
| WASTES. Governor urges contaminated soil be disposed of outside Fukushima by 2045. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. WSJ’s Chief Foreign Correspondent Declares It’s Over For Ukraine In Kursk. Chris Hedges: Trump’s Christian Fascists and the War on Palestine. |
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- Labour’s arms exports to Israel exposed Labour allowed dozens of arms exports to Israel after weapons sanctions.
- How multi-billion nuclear weapons facility aims to overcome challenge of limited supply chain.
- Royal Navy: Powerful new nuclear submarines being built costing £41bn – when will they enter the fleet?
- Qatar calls for Israel’s nuclear facilities to be under IAEA supervision.
- The nuclear testing revival: Global fallout with deadly consequences. How many nuclear weapons does the United States have in 2025? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vsNKk9vkIE.
- We’re #1 in Selling Weapons!
- Europe going nuclear would be a catastrophic mistake. Could Poland and Germany acquire nuclear bombs?- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/03/15/1-b1-could-poland-and-germany-acquire-nuclear-bombs/ Poland’s president urges U.S. to move nuclear warheads to Polish territory. The Script of Anxiety: Poland’s Nuclear Weapons Fascination.
- FT reports. Movements across the world call for an end to all US military exercises on the Korean peninsula.
- Chinese nuclear weapons, 2025.
- An Unreliable America Means More Countries Want the Bomb.
- Canada to review the purchase of US-made F-35 fighter jets in light of Trump’s trade war.
Greens leader Adam Bandt says Australia should walk away from AUKUS in wake of Trump’s tariffs
ABC News, By political reporter Maani Truu, 16 Mar 25
In short:
Greens leader Adam Bandt has urged the government to walk away from the AUKUS pact with the United States, describing the imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs as a “wake-up call” to rethink Australia’s relationship with its key ally.
It comes as Trade Minister Don Farrell said the challenge going forward is figuring out what US President Donald Trump wants and to “make an offer he can’t refuse”.
What’s next?
The minor party is open to a formal agreement with Labor in the event of a hung parliament after the upcoming federal election, due on or before May 17.
Greens leader Adam Bandt says the government should get out of the AUKUS deal with the United States and explore other relationships in the wake of Donald Trump’s tariffs, warning it puts a “very big” target on Australia’s back.
The minor party has long opposed the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, which is expected to cost $368 billion, but Mr Bandt said the new tariffs imposed this week were a “wake-up call that we need to rethink our relationship with the United States”.
“We should get out of AUKUS, now is not the time to be hitching Australia’s wagon to Donald Trump — it puts Australia at risk and it is billions of dollars being spent on submarines that might never arrive,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
Mr Bandt said the US president was a “very dangerous man” and it was “wishful thinking” to believe he would come to Australia’s aid in the event of a security threat.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out walking away from the AUKUS deal as a response to the tariffs, describing it as a “good deal for Australia”.
The trilateral agreement with the US and UK would deliver Australia eight new nuclear submarines based on British design and with American technology, with the first five due by the middle of the 2050s.
The federal government had fought for an exemption to Mr Trump’s sweeping 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium imports, but on Wednesday the White House revealed that no country would be spared.
In the wake of the decision, Mr Albanese said it was “not a friendly act” and lashed the US president’s order as “entirely unjustified”.
But he said Australia would not respond with tariffs of its own, pivoting instead to a pre-election pitch at Australians to “buy local”……………………………………………………………………………………………
Greens open-minded to formal hung parliament deal
The Greens are preparing for the possibility of a minority government after the federal election, which is due on or before May 17.
Mr Bandt said the party would be “open minded” to striking a formal agreement with Labor if that eventuated, as was the case in 2010, categorically ruling out working with the Coalition leader.
He said his preference would be to work with Labor to get action on the cost of living crisis and climate change………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
he said a hung parliament would be a “once in a generation chance” to push the major parties to act…………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-16/greens-adam-bandt-aukus-insiders/105057580?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf276668174&utm_campaign=tw_abc_news&utm_source=t.co
The Coalition MP who tried to stop the solar farm that will help save thousands of local jobs
What is clear is that if the LNP had its way, and was in a position to deliver on its ideological infatuation with coal and nuclear, old energy paradigms and its obsession with “baseload”, then the smelters and the refineries would not survive beyond the end of the decade.
Giles Parkinson, Mar 16, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-coalition-mp-who-tried-to-stop-the-solar-farm-that-will-help-save-thousands-of-local-jobs/
If you ever need an example of the idiocy and the ignorance behind the Coalition and LNP campaign against renewable energy in Australia, a good place to start would be the federal MP for Flynn, Colin Boyce.
The LNP member has staged a relentless campaign against renewables, and the proposed Smoky Creek solar project in his electorate in particular. Boyce has argued that they are “reckless”, and he has amplified numerous scare campaigns about heat islands and toxic runoffs, and even homelessness that these projects allegedly cause.
Just a few weeks ago, Boyce argued that wind and solar could not possibly provide the necessary power for the biggest employer in his own electorate, and the biggest energy consumer in the state, the Boyne Island smelter.
“The Gladstone community and the Boyne smelter rely heavily on reliable, predictable and affordable power. The reality of wind and solar output, for anyone enjoying their air-conditioning in this current heat, is that it cannot provide any of this,” Boyce wrote on his web page on January 22.
“It is not a 24-hour baseload solution. It isn’t always windy and it’s certainly not that sunny after 7pm.” Nuclear, Boyce suggested, is the only solution to replace coal fired power.
How wrong, how ill-informed, and how irresponsible can a local MP be?
Last week, Rio Tinto – the owner of the Boyne Island aluminium smelter and the Yarwun and Queensland Alumina refineries that together employ more than 3,000 people in Gladstone alone – announced the future of these assets will be secured, precisely because they have been able to sign deals for wind, solar and battery storage.
Rio Tinto last week signed 20-year off take deal with the 600 MW Smoky Creek solar farm and its huge 600 MW, 2,400 MWh DC coupled battery, adding to the previously announced contracts with the 1.4 GW Bungaban wind project and the 1.2 GW Upper Calliope solar project.
“These agreements are integral to repowering our Gladstone aluminium operations with affordable, reliable and lower carbon energy for decades to come,” said the head of Rio Tinto Australia Kellie Parker.
“For the first time, we have integrated crucial battery storage in our efforts to make the Boyne aluminium smelter globally cost-competitive, as traditional energy sources become more expensive.”
Rio Tinto says the deal with the Smoky Creek solar and battery means the company now has contracts in place for 80 per cent of its bulk energy needs in Gladstone, and 30 per cent of its “firming” requirements. But it is confident, given the plunging cost of battery storage technologies, that this gap can be readily addressed.
What is clear is that if the LNP had its way, and was in a position to deliver on its ideological infatuation with coal and nuclear, old energy paradigms and its obsession with “baseload”, then the smelters and the refineries would not survive beyond the end of the decade.
Coal fired generation is now too costly and the local coal generators are getting old, the alumina and aluminium products must compete in a world that demands low emission supplies, and nuclear is too far away – and way too expensive – to help.
Boyce’s argument against Smoky Creek is a taste of the nonsense, lies and deliberate misinformation peddled by the LNP, the Murdoch media, conservative “think-tanks” and nuclear boosters and then recycled back through frightened and ill-informed constitutents.
Boyce’s arguments against the Smoky Creek project included claims about “run -off” from solar farms affecting the barrier reef, of destroyed farming land, of businesses lost, and homelessness.
He has warned of “heat islands” (a disproved nonsense) and in 2023 wrote to the regulator warning that his constituents were “lying awake at night, concerned about the radiation and heat energy will affect their herds, their families, and their health.”
Boyce has long campaigned against Smoky Creek, standing up in Queensland state parliament in May, 2021, as the then member for Callide, complaining that the project would only employ five people on a full time basis. He didn’t consider the thousands of jobs that could be saved by the project going ahead.
That speech to parliament – you can watch the video here – was delivered less than five hours after the Callide coal generator, experienced a devastating explosion that very nearly caused a state-wide blackout, and might have were it not for the intervention of big batteries that the Coalition still dismisses as useless.
But Boyce, without a hint of irony, declared that the Callide explosion “reiterates the fact that we need baseload power.”
The biggest employer in his electorate, and the biggest consumer of energy in Australia, begs to differ. Perhaps it’s time that Boyce and his LNP colleagues listen to what they have and other experts have to say.
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and of its sister sites One Step Off The Grid and the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
Australia Ramps Up Missile Arsenal Over Chinese Navy Concerns
Just the bare $74 billion
Canberra plans to strengthen the nation’s maritime defenses by equipping forces with anti-ship missiles and advanced targeting radars.
The Australian military is looking to deploy new long-range missiles amid concerns about the growing presence of Chinese warships off the country’s vast coastline.
In the latest move to defend Australia’s maritime security, the government plans to arm forces with anti-ship missiles and advanced targeting radars.
Canberra will allocate up to 74 billion Australian dollars (47 billion U.S. dollars) over the next decade for targeting technology, long-range strike capabilities, missile defense, and the manufacturing of missiles and explosives, according to official speeches and defense planning documents.
Two new types of advanced anti-ship missiles, to be fired from mobile launchers, are currently under evaluation, with a decision expected by 2026.
Future versions of one of the contenders, Lockheed Martin’s Precision Strike Missile, are expected to have a range of up to 1,000 km and could be launched from High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers. Australia has ordered 42 HIMARS launchers from the United States, with the launchers expected to be in service by 2026-27, according to the defense department.
Mick Ryan, a retired Australian army major general, said the new missiles for the Australian army would provide a powerful strike capability and serve as a deterrent to potential adversaries………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Australian security officials expect more frequent and stronger visits by Chinese warships to the country’s coast…………………………….. https://www.theepochtimes.com/china/australia-ramps-up-missile-arsenal-over-chinese-navy-concerns-5825315?utm_source=Aobreakingnoe&utm_medium=Aoemail&utm_campaign=Aobreaking-2025-03-17&utm_content=NL_Ao&src_src=Aobreakingnoe&src_cmp=Aobreaking-2025-03-17&cta_utm_source=Aobreakingnoecta&est=LOrwYxBGZjROUs118QpMBtE0bgLYS8gg4SGZaQDgSPefhBQmyAxNjk%2BPa9v%2FDaL7DpE6eW86a08A
27-year-old chemist discovers a process for recycling rare earths.
Gordon Edwards, 17 Mar 25 – The article copied below, translated by Google Translate, adds an optimistic note to the rise of renewables as the most affordable choice for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Toxic materials are often used in the construction and operation of industrial infrastructure of many kinds. This includes renewable energy equipment such as wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables.
The so-called “rare earths” (also named “lanthanides”) are a group of 17 metals in the
periodic table that have unusual properties that are ideal for use in electronic and electricity generating devices. Mining these metals is very dangerous for the workers and the environment. The metals themselves have a high chemical toxicity. But they are needed for renewable energy systems as well as many other electronic applications.
Note, however, that wind and solar do not create toxic waste. They simply make use of these naturally-occurring toxic materials that can, in principe, be recycled and used again and again. Recycling and reusing such toxic materials ought to be an essential built-in requirement of renewable energy systems.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, literally creates hundreds of highly toxic new elements that cannot be recycled or re-used for civilian purposes simply because they are too radioactive – meaning their atoms are unstable and will spontaneously disintegrate, giving off biologically damaging atomic radiation. A radioactive variety (“isotope”) of any given element is always much more toxic than the non-radioactive variety of the same element.
Even the finest stainless steal and zirconium-alloy structures used in the core of a nuclear reactor will have to be kept out of the environemnt of living things for thousands of years as radioactive waste. These originally non-radioactive metals have become intensely radioactuve.
Such is not the case with materials used in wind and solar. No new toxic materials are created, and those toxics that are used can be recycled and reused many times.
Ironically, one of the reasons why rare earths are so dangerous to mine is because of the inevitable presence of radioactive elements – uranium, thorium and their decay products – leading to excessive exposure to radon gas and radioactive dust that can be very harmful over the long term. It turns out that rare earths have a strong geochemical affinity with uranium and thorium, the two principle primordial radionuclides on Earth.
P.S.
One of the reasons why Donald Trump wants to acquire Greenland is because there is a mountain of rare earth ores near the Inuit community of Narsaq. Thanks to Nancy Covington and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Canada (IPPNWC) (then called Physicians for Global Survival) I was sent to Narsaq in 2016 to explain the radioactive dangers of mining that mountain, called Kvanefjeld in Danish or Kuannersuit in Greenlandic (the native Inuit language).
ETH Chemist Discovers Process for Recycling Rare Earths
The mining of rare earths is environmentally harmful and controlled by China. Chemist Marie Perrin (27) has developed a method that could solve both problems.
“Why is the sky blue? How do clouds form?” Marie Perrin asked herself as a child. “Even then, I was very curious,” she recalls. Her curiosity not only ensured that the daughter of two scientists understood the world around her better with each passing year. It could also soon be a reason why this world is changing. The now 27-year-old and her team at ETH Zurich have developed a method for recycling rare earths.
Important Resource for the Energy Transition
Rare earths are 17 metals that are used in all modern devices: in batteries, smartphones and computers, in wind turbines and electric cars. “They’re all around us,” says Perrin, “but only one percent of all rare earths are recycled.” Recycling is important because the energy transition is requiring ever more rare earths. Their extraction is not only expensive but also highly harmful to the environment and often releases radioactivity.
There’s also a geopolitical problem looming over them: Around 70 percent of rare earths are mined in China. What this could mean for the rest of the world became clear in 2010, when a conflict arose between China and Japan. China informally stopped exports of rare earths to Japan. Prices rose by over 1,000 percent, and supply shortages arose around the world. “If you compare it to oil, the largest exporting countries have a market share of 30 to 40 percent,” explains Marie Perrin.
Lightbulbs made from ETH waste
“We were lucky to have discovered this method,” recalls Perrin. Originally, her research had nothing to do with the recycling of rare earths. But she discovered that the molecules she was studying had the potential to do just that. The chemist devoted herself to her research: “I fished old energy-saving light bulbs out of the ETH recycling bins and experimented with them in the lab,” says Perrin. Until she succeeded in separating the rare earth europium from the light bulb.
Perrin compares the process to baking pizza: Imagine mixing a pinch of salt into pizza dough. How can you recover the salt that has now dispersed throughout the dough? You need something that can distinguish and separate the elements in the dough from those in the salt.
In Marie Perrin’s case, this ingredient is called tetrathiometalate. “Using the known methods, this process had to be repeated several times,” explains Perrin. “This requires an enormous amount of resources.” With Perrin’s process, the rare earth europium can be separated from the other elements in a light bulb in a high degree of purity in a single step.
Initiative Required
Perrin’s research team published their results in the journal Nature Communications, filed a patent, and was faced with the question: What next? “Either you sell the license to larger chemical companies or you develop the technology further in-house,” explains Perrin. “It was clear to me that I wanted to do it myself.” The risk of the process gathering dust in a drawer at a large company was too great for her – as was her curiosity to find out where the technology could lead her.
Together with an old school friend and her doctoral supervisor, Marie Perrin founded the startup REEcover. The goal: to make the process scalable with light bulbs in a first step. In a second step, it will be expanded to include other of the 16 remaining rare earths. “I’m a researcher and had no entrepreneurial experience,” says the Frenchwoman. But her curiosity drives her forward here too: “There’s something new every day, which is fun.
“A Promising Future“
Our timing is good,” Perrin is aware. The European Union passed a law on critical raw materials in 2024. One of the goals of the law is to reduce dependence on rare earths from China. This is another reason why REEcover is considered one of the most promising startups at ETH.
The Lizard’s Revenge
topnrosdeS146ag, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064594993745
Anti-nuclear activists target BHP headquarters and block Collins St to mark the 14th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Just after 10am today around 20 anti-nuclear activists dressed in white radioactive suits used barrels marked with the radioactive symbols and a car decorated with anti-nuclear statements to block the BHP head office. Inside the car a man in his 60s
secured himself to the steering wheel using a bike lock.
The Desert Liberation Front, who organised the protest highlighted the relationship between uranium mined by BHP and the Fukushima disaster:
“BHP makes its billions from destroying the planet and it is not only complicit in Fukushima by supplying the uranium but is part of the push for nuclear power in Australia, a plan that puts all of us and our planet in danger of another Fukushima.”
“The 14th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster comes at a time in Australia when the Liberal Party is attempting to dress up nuclear power as safe and the Labor Party is continuing with its commitment to AUKUS, a plan that will not only bring nuclear subs to ports around the country but will also result in nuclear waste dumps on sacred land.”
“We call on all political parties and private companies operating in this country to commit to banning the mining of uranium and the banning of all forms of nuclear power, both for weapons of war and as a false alternative to renewable energy.”
The end of coal and the fake nuclear energy ‘red herring’
Coal has had its day as Australia’s key energy source — regardless of what politicians driving an energy debate full of distractions tell you over the next few months.
And the suggestion that nuclear energy is a viable replacement is a red herring.
John Quiggin, New Daily, 16 Mar 25
Coal-fired power is more expensive than renewable alternatives, more polluting and the power stations that use it now are old, generally obsolete and unreliable. They won’t be rebuilt. That’s not just an opinion, it’s backed by all the evidence, regardless of how many political agendas argue otherwise.
Coalition claims that nuclear energy can replace coal simply don’t stack up. It’s expensive and can’t possibly be delivered in time to replace coal-fired energy. And gas is not the stopgap solution some would like to think.
The genuine answer to deliver on Australia’s growing energy needs is to quickly manage the nation’s transition to renewables.
Yet the debate over future energy supply and power prices, which will be front and centre during the election campaign, is part of the ongoing culture wars over energy largely imported from the US.
Coal: the facts
The core of the problem is simple. The coal-fired power stations that supply about 50 per cent of electricity to Victoria, NSW and Queensland are old, unreliable and polluting.
Most are 40-50 years old, using obsolete ‘subcritical’ technology – which is constrained by the boiling point of water, and is about 34 per cent efficient. Even the newest plants at Kogan Creek and Tarong in Queensland use outdated supercritical technology, which is about 39 per cent efficient.
The state of the art in coal-fired power, still highly polluting, is ‘ultra-supercritical’ at 43 per cent efficiency but there are no Australian plants of this kind. Worse still, despite their relative youth and modernity, Kogan Creek and Tarong have been among the least reliable plants in the network.
Most of these plants are due for retirement soon: On current plans, all but a handful will be gone by 2035. Meanwhile, electricity demand is set to grow with the electrification of transport, industry and home heating and perhaps with the development of energy-hungry data centres.
There is no prospect of building new coal-fired power stations. The cost far exceeds that of solar photovoltaics and wind, even after allowing for the cost of battery storage.
Outside China and India, which had 97 per cent of new or revived coal-fired proposals in the first half of 2024, almost no one is building new coal-fired power stations.
Even in those two countries, where demand is growing rapidly, the great majority of new capacity is renewable.
There may be some role for gas in meeting peak demand, though even this is doubtful. Gas is a hugely expensive source of electricity, with the problem made worse by the way successive governments have mishandled Australia’s gas resources, selling gas cheaply to foreign buyers that might have to be bought back at a loss.
It becomes obvious the only real question — despite the imported culture wars — is how rapidly we can manage the transition to renewables and what mix of generation, storage and transmission technologies will best achieve this.
Coalition politicians like Barnaby Joyce have led campaigns against solar and wind projects and the transmission lines needed to incorporate them into the grid………………………………………………………………
Nuclear red herring
Rather than concede that its policy can only delay the transition, the Coalition has relied on the claim that nuclear power will provide a replacement for coal.
Apart from being massively expensive, nuclear power can’t possibly be delivered in time to replace existing coal-fired power stations.
Even in countries with established systems of regulation, trained workforce and ‘brownfield’ sites, construction of reactors commonly takes 15 years or more.
For Australia, starting from scratch, 20 to 25 years is more likely.
Nuclear power is, quite simply, a red herring. Senator Matt Canavan incautiously admitted as much last year, saying that while nuclear is expensive “we’re latching onto it as a silver bullet, as a panacea, because it fixes a political issue for us”.
This dishonest campaign, along with wider voter concerns about the cost of living, may be enough to get the Coalition past the next election.
But the real energy issues will remain and wishing them away with the illusory prospect of nuclear power won’t work. Australians deserve some reality in the political debate.
Professor John Quiggin is a professor of economics at The University of Queensland and a former member of the Climate Change Authority. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2025/03/15/end-coal-nuclear
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 