Nuclear advocates: Splitting atoms and spinning agendas
Ed COMMENT. I can’t help noticing how the Liberal ad Labor agendas overlap here – in this carefully controlled pro-nuclear event -described by Sybilla George.
Labor is pushing on with the AUKUS nuclear submarine folly. Liberal is pretending that jt really intends to start nuclear power in Australia.
Both in the grip of USA militarism and the nuclear lobby
Despite having three women on stage – including Stanke – for the panel event, the Celebrity Room at Moonee Valley Racing Club was dominated by men on Saturday night. Opening the evening, Shackel said his charity aimed to “enable civil debate”, yet panels on the tour featured only pro-nuclear views.
By Sybilla George | 6 February 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/nuclear-advocates-splitting-atoms-and-spinning-agendas,19407
Former Miss America and nuclear energy activist Grace Stanke‘s Melbourne visit saw a pro-nuclear panel push persuasion over debate, with filtered questions and few dissenting voices, writes Sybilla George.
FOLLOWING EVENTS in Perth and Brisbane, Nuclear for Australia’s ‘An Evening with Miss America 2023 Grace Stanke’ took place last Saturday at the Moonee Valley Racing Club.
Nuclear for Australia is a nuclear power advocacy charity started in 2023 by teenager Will Shackel and patronised by electronics entrepreneur Dick Smith. The Miss America 2023 Australia Tour is also supported by Smith, according to the Nuclear for Australia website which has served as a platform for Smith’s response to The Guardian’s fact-checking of his anti-renewables arguments.
Nuclear for Australia is a nuclear power advocacy charity started in 2023 by teenager Will Shackel and patronised by electronics entrepreneur Dick Smith. The Miss America 2023 Australia Tour is also supported by Smith, according to the Nuclear for Australia website which has served as a platform for Smith’s response to The Guardian’s fact-checking of his anti-renewables arguments.
The tour aims to ‘help bridge the current divide between men and women for nuclear energy’ and cites the Australian Conservation Foundation statistic that 51% of men versus 21% of women support nuclear energy.
Despite having three women on stage – including Stanke – for the panel event, the Celebrity Room at Moonee Valley Racing Club was dominated by men on Saturday night. Opening the evening, Shackel said his charity aimed to “enable civil debate”, yet panels on the tour featured only pro-nuclear views. Questions put to the panel were selected from those sent in before and during the event, omitting the opportunity for live questions.
Stanke, who has an undergraduate degree in nuclear engineering, advocates for clean energy, including wind, solar and nuclear power. She began working for the United States’ largest nuclear energy provider, Constellation Energy, in 2024. Of Constellation’s energy capacity, 60% derives from nuclear power, while 25% comes from oil and natural gas fossil fuels.
The panel portion of the event featured Stanke alongside fellow American Mark Schneider, former operator of U.S. civil and defence nuclear reactors and current chief nuclear officer for UBH Group — an Australian defence consultancy firm angling for a ‘piece of the AU$368 billion nuclear sub [AUKUS] pie’.
They were joined by energy and resources lawyer Kirsty Braybon and Global Nuclear Security Partners’ (GNSP) Australia branch managing partner Jasmin “Jaz” Diab.
Army officer and nuclear engineer Jaz Diab is a star of the pro-nuclear media circuit. She’s made several appearances on Sky News and spoke at The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Navigating Nuclear conference in May 2024 alongside Coalition Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, before the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan announcement in July 2024.
Diab joined the business group AUKUS Forum, suggesting GNSP will be making a play for the AUKUS pie and nuclear energy contracts should the Coalition get into government at the next federal election.
As reported by the Australian Financial Review in December 2024, the Australian Department of Defence spent AU$811 million on just the big five consultancy firms in 2022-23.
Braybon, who teaches a subject on nuclear law at the University of Adelaide, responded to a question about the current illegality of nuclear power in Australia under the 1998 Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act.
Some legal barriers to nuclear energy have already been watered down to accommodate AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, Braybon said, and “no one noticed”, pointing to the entwined framework of defence and civil nuclear programs.
The defence backgrounds of panel members Diab and Schneider also attest to this. Braybon did not specify which law changes she was referring to, however, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024, which was pushed through the Senate in October 2024 – designating waste “zones” in Adelaide and Perth for AUKUS-related nuclear waste – was reported on by Independent Australia, Michael West Media, The Advertiser and The Guardian.
While anti-nuclear protesters attended the Perth and Brisbane events – including a community action projecting ‘Nuclear energy distracts from the climate emergency’ outside the Gabba – there were no visible objectors in Melbourne.
However, Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group (LVSG) members attended the Moonee Valley Racing Club ahead of the Morwell event the next evening. The Coalition selected Loy Yang – a coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley – as one of seven sites around Australia for proposed nuclear power plants.
LVSG is concerned about the questions that Nuclear for Australia will not answer regarding the impact of nuclear power in fighting climate change and the economic cost of constructing and maintaining nuclear power plants. It points out that renewables have surpassed nuclear energy production in the U.S. in just 15 years and that there is a lack of private investment in nuclear power because of its unprofitability.
Indeed, a popular argument in favour of nuclear power appealing to the increasing energy demands of artificial intelligence data centres took a blow in recent days with the announcement that the Chinese AI program DeepSeek performs a similar function to the U.S. program ChatGPT, at a fraction of the cost and energy.
According to LVSG member Dan Caffrey, the Nuclear for Australia Morwell event attracted 240 attendees, but panel members “expressed a complete ignorance” of issues in the local area that reduce the viability of nuclear power, such as water availability and rehabilitation of the existing coal-fired station. The avoidance of challenging questions about nuclear power was “very disheartening”.
Sybilla George is a freelance writer with an interest in nuclear policy and the Pacific region.
Dutton’s nuclear policy is a Coalition scam
By Steve Bishop | 10 February 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/duttons-nuclear-policy-is-a-coalition-scam,19427
Overwhelming evidence is proving the Coalition’s nuclear plan to be a scam, writes Steve Bishop.
OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton is scamming Australians with a nuclear power promise he knows he cannot deliver.
LNP research would have revealed the impossibility of providing nuclear power by the Coalition’s target of the mid-2030s.
This means a Dutton government would continue the years of Coalition ineptitude in tackling climate change and failing to provide a workable energy policy.
Coalition Senator Matt Canavan has revealed it’s nothing more than a “fix”.
Canavan said:
“Nuclear is not going to cut it. But we’re latching on to it… because it fixes a political issue for us… But it ain’t the cheapest form of power.”
In other words, it’s a con. Or to use a good Aussie word: a rort.
It’s why an internet search has found no trace of an authoritative nuclear body or expert endorsing the Coalition’s nuclear timeframe.
It’s simply a version of the old-time medicine show that peddled worthless cures to the gullible. The evidence demonstrates that the flimflammery of Mr Dutton’s Miracle Nuclear Elixir cannot work.
Mr Dutton promised:
‘A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).’
The CSIRO found in its GenCost 2023‐24 report that the earliest deployment for large-scale nuclear rectors would not occur until after 2040.
In the U.S., which has a nuclear power industry, AP1000 units at Vogtle, Georgia took 15 years to build, more than twice the projected timeline.
In Finland, the 1600mw Olkiluoto 3 was completed in 2023 — 18 years after construction started.
Even in China, with fewer hurdles to jump and a massive nuclear industry, it took 14 years for the Sanmen1 nuclear power station to be completed with plans for two units approved in 2004 and the first 1200mw reactor starting commercial operation on September 2018.
So it would be impossible to switch on a large plant in Australia before 2040. Is it feasible for the Coalition to build small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2035 as projected?
The ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions suggests it would be more like 15 years before the first reactor could start producing.
It says:
In Western countries… recent construction times have far exceeded a decade.
Before any nuclear power plant can be built here, we would first need to establish a regulatory system. That could take up to five years.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has found:
‘SMRs would not be operating before the 2040s in Australia, too late to replace coal.’
It also revealed construction delays of 12 to 13 years had occurred in four of the few completed SMRs in Argentina, China and Russia.
Similarly, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has found
‘…a mature market for the technology may emerge in the late 2040s.’
Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, a nuclear engineer, told a NSW inquiry in 2020 that it would be naïve to think a power plant could be built in less than two decades.
The UK, which already has nuclear power stations, claims it is running the world’s fastest process to deliver an operational SMR by the mid-2030s. But it started this process in 2021 with a target date of the early 2030s and that has already blown out to the mid-2030s — some 16 years on from 2021.
This process aims to invest in demonstration SMRs in 2029. But a research paper filed on Social Science Research Network (SSRN) has found that if it then takes only two years to deploy resources ready for construction, only three years to build the plant and a further two years to demonstrate successful operation, any follow-on capacity would only come online well after 2040.
Even if a Coalition government was able to emulate this “fastest” process it would be after 2040 before an SMR is built. But a graph on page 7 of the plan released by Mr Dutton shows about 1,750mw of nuclear power being produced by 2036.
That would require six reactors having gone through the planning process, built, tested and commissioned — an impossibility based on the expert evidence.
In June, Mr Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the Election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices…”
The overwhelming evidence means the Coalition scam should be rejected at the ballot box.
Trident nuclear submarine project rated “unachievable” third year running
A new submarine programme, known as Aukus, to eventually replace the Astute-class boats, is under development with the US and Australia. Its budget for 2023-24 was £495m, but its total cost and delivery date have been kept secret to protect “national security” and “international relations”.
Aukus was rated as amber for 2023-24 and 2022-23. The IPA suggested that the MoD might be over-stretching itself on the project.
The IPA’s latest report for 2023-24 was published in January 2025, six months late. It assessed the feasibility of 227 major government projects, including 44 run by the MoD with a total cost of £298bn.
Rob Edwards, The Ferret 10th Feb 2025
A £4bn project to help replace nuclear-armed Trident submarines on the Clyde has been branded as “unachievable” for the third year running by a UK government watchdog.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has again given the manufacture of new reactors to power replacement submarines its lowest rating of “red” for 2023-24. There are “major issues” that do not seem to be “manageable or resolvable”, it said.
The IPA has badged eight other major UK nuclear weapons projects, with a combined overall cost of over £55bn, as “amber”. This means they are facing “significant issues” which require “management attention”.
These include building new facilities at the Faslane nuclear base, near Helensburgh, and dismantling nuclear submarines at Rosyth in Fife. The construction of the entire future nuclear-powered fleets of submarines – Astute, Dreadnought and Aukus – was also rated amber.
Campaigners attacked the UK nuclear weapons programme as “an unaffordable shambles” and a “disastrous money pit”. They have demanded its cancellation, and asked for the money saved to be spent on public services.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) accused the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of being “totally unable” to deliver a cost-effective replacement for Trident on time. The Scottish Greens said that public money shouldn’t be wasted on “deadly Cold War hangovers.”…………………………………..
The IPA’s latest report for 2023-24 was published in January 2025, six months late. It assessed the feasibility of 227 major government projects, including 44 run by the MoD with a total cost of £298bn.
Nine of the MoD projects were related to nuclear weapons and submarine programmes, with a total cost of at least £59bn. The one that was given a red rating was to construct reactors to be installed in four Trident-armed Dreadnought submarines to replace ageing Vanguard submarines at Faslane in the 2030s.
The project was also rated as red in 2022-23 and 2021-22, as The Ferret reported. According to the IPA, that means that “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable” and it may need its “overall viability reassessed”.
It said: “There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”
The Dreadnought reactors, which are being built by Rolls-Royce in Derby, faced “ongoing challenges associated with achieving the required delivery date” in 2028, the IPA added. This was an “important milestone” for the UK’s policy of keeping at least one nuclear-armed submarine on patrol all the time, known as “continuous at sea deterrent”.
Among the eight other nuclear projects rated as amber, was a £1.9bn scheme to build new facilities at Faslane and nearby Coulport, on the Clyde, to support new submarines. Its rating was kept secret in 2022-23 and it was red in 2021-22.
Amber is defined by the IPA as: “successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist, requiring management attention”. The issues “appear resolvable at this stage” and should not cause delay or increased costs “if addressed promptly”.
The Clyde infrastructure project was entering its “most complex phase” over the next four years, the IPA said. It highlighted “two main issues affecting delivery confidence”.
One was rebuilding existing facilities while they continue to be used for submarine operations. The other was attracting and retaining suitably skilled staff “to a remote site in a very tight labour market in western Scotland.”
Costs of some nuclear projects kept secret
A £362m project to begin dismantling defunct nuclear submarines at the Rosyth naval base on the Firth of Forth, was also rated as amber for 2023-24, as it was for 2022-23 and 2021-22. “This is a novel and complex project and learning by doing encounters difficulty and challenge that cannot necessarily be planned for,” commented the IPA.
A £37bn project to build the four Dreadnought submarines, other than the reactors, has been rated as amber for the last six years. An £11bn project to finish building seven nuclear-powered but conventionally-armed Astute submarines has been amber for the last three years.
A new submarine programme, known as Aukus, to eventually replace the Astute-class boats, is under development with the US and Australia. Its budget for 2023-24 was £495m, but its total cost and delivery date have been kept secret to protect “national security” and “international relations”.
Aukus was rated as amber for 2023-24 and 2022-23. The IPA suggested that the MoD might be over-stretching itself on the project.
There was “a degree of risk relating to the ability of the defence nuclear enterprise and the wider UK supply chain to resource the programme with the necessary skills, experience and infrastructure to deliver against a demanding schedule, without adversely impacting the delivery of the Dreadnought programme,” it said.
A new programme repackaging previous projects for making and storing nuclear materials at Aldermaston in Berkshire has been rated as amber for the last two years. Its total cost and delivery date have been kept under wraps.
The rating, costs and comments on another project to test nuclear weapons in France and England, known as Teutates, have also been kept secret for national security and international relations reasons.
The SNP highlighted the MoD’s record of radioactive leaks and rising costs on the Clyde. “It is disappointing but not surprising that the MoD seems to be totally unable to manufacture a replacement for Trident in a timely or cost-effective manner,” said SNP MSP Keith Brown.
“The UK’s nuclear weapons aren’t safe for workers and wildlife, they don’t work when tested, and their manufacture is not efficient. Nor are they delivering a good deal for taxpayers.”
The Scottish Greens described nuclear weapons as a “moral abomination” that should be opposed. “The fact that they have also proven to be a disastrous money pit only underlines the urgent need to remove them for good,” said Green MSP Maggie Chapman.
“We could do so much good with this money, investing in services that make our lives safer and better, rather than wasting it on these deadly Cold War hangovers.”
The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND) blasted the UK’s nuclear weapons as “a colonial hangover, an unaffordable shambles, a danger to us and the world”.
SCND chair, Lynn Jamieson, said: “The combined cost of keeping the nuclear weapon system going and of building a replacement escalates while public services are drastically cut.”
The Nuclear Information Service, which researches and criticises nuclear weapons, argued that the UK nuclear programme was unsustainable. “The case for cancelling badly run and unaffordable weapons projects is compelling,” said research manager, Tim Street……………………
https://theferret.scot/trident-nuclear-unachievable-third-year/
Australia’s technocratic drive to nuclear ignorance
The worshipped role of the expert has excised public debate from nuclear policy. The expert’s validation exonerates the government from the onus of explanation, excluding constituents from relevant information and thus precluding commentary. Nuclear science, a field shrouded in esotericism, marks the summit of techno-scientific rationality, in which utter destruction is intellectually atomised out of politics to the realm of the expert/executive.
ARENA, Sybilla George, 11 Dec 2024
Australia is ‘going nuclear’. The addition of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia’s defence arsenal through the $368 billion AUKUS deal passes a threshold of nuclear legitimisation that Oceania’s anti-nuclear activists have been battling for decades. Nuclearisation used to be an eco-ethical debate, as with the anti- vs pro-uranium mining battles since the 70s that have seen wins and losses on both sides. The rapid increase of Australia’s nuclear involvement, however, signals the reframing of national nuclear rhetoric as techno-scientific rationality that precludes dialogue and authorises executive ruling.
While the AUKUS deal plays out in the limelight, at RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory the building of facilities to host six United States B-52H Stratofortress bombers on rotational deployment, alongside ‘up to 75’ US Armed Force permanent staff, is underway. The facility renovations are funded through the Force Postures Initiative, the most recent phase of the Force Postures Agreement which since 2014 has defined the United States’s military agenda in Australia, with the consent of successive Australian governments. The Enhanced Air Cooperation branch of the US Alliance was recently ratified when Australian Defence provided ‘air-to-air refuelling’ to B-2 Spirit bombers involved in the US’s October strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.
More than half of the United States’s stock of 76 active B-52 bombers is capable of carrying and deploying nuclear weapons; the remainder is conventionally armed. These jets have been flying over Australian airspace for half a century; however, stationing them at RAAF Tindal signals a significant escalation in nuclear involvement, as it will produce for the first time the conditions ‘to support potential nuclear combat missions from Australian soil’, according to a Nautilus Institute Special Report published in August.
This would be illegal under the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), an agreement on which Australia under Labor has abstained since 2022 when it rescinded the Coalition government’s ‘No’ vote. Signing and ratifying the treaty features as a goal in Labor’s 2023 National Platform. Yet progress seems unlikely, given Australia’s third abstention on the TPNW on 1 November 2024 and the persistent silence from the government on the United States’s policy to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ the presence of nuclear arms aboard aircraft or ships. Under this policy, Australia will not be informed whether B-52 bombers on deployment at RAAF Tindal are carrying nuclear weapons.
The public interest in the disclosure of the presence of nuclear weapons includes matters of security, ethics and democratic transparency. Of great concern is the Albanese government’s passive concession to a foreign state’s policy that conflicts with its own commitment to ‘full knowledge and concurrence’ of foreign activities conducted in Australia. Restricted speech has been increasingly utilised as a tactic to expedite pro-nuclear policy in the rush towards technological rationality.
Another example is Albanese’s Nuclear Power Safety Bill, which was rammed through the Senate without debate in October 2024. It stipulates two dumping ‘zones’ for highly irradiated ‘spent nuclear fuel’, to be located within dozens of kilometres of Perth and Adelaide—Western and South Australia being selected once again to play host to nuclear, as during the United Kingdom’s nuclear testing campaign. Indeed, Defence recently withdrew its environmental approval application for developments to prepare HMAS Stirling to host nuclear-powered submarines, and The Australian has reported that the government will resubmit the application with an additional request for the rights to store irradiated waste materials at the facility, which would thus be ‘subject to a single round of community feedback’.
Deferral to the United States’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ nuclear weapons policy is an appeal to ignorance, and thus innocence, which in turn forecloses systems of accountability, since governments’ denial of information renders their constituents ignorant. The current government’s silence on the presence of nuclear weapons on US aircraft stationed at RAAF Tindal eerily resembles Robert Menzies’ ‘extreme’ commitment to the United Kingdom’s ‘need to know’ policy during the nuclear testing campaign from 1952 to 1963. As prime minister, Menzies exclusively assented without consulting Cabinet or scientific advisers to the use of the Montebello Islands as the site of Operation Hurricane, the nuclear bomb detonation that cemented the United Kingdom as the world’s third nuclear power. The program was not announced until 1952, prior to which Menzies deliberately misled the media about plans for nuclear testing on Australian soil, claiming he had ‘heard nothing’ about it.
The worshipped role of the expert has excised public debate from nuclear policy. The expert’s validation exonerates the government from the onus of explanation, excluding constituents from relevant information and thus precluding commentary. Nuclear science, a field shrouded in esotericism, marks the summit of techno-scientific rationality, in which utter destruction is intellectually atomised out of politics to the realm of the expert/executive.
. The UK nuclear testing campaign caused massive human and ecological suffering to Aboriginal communities in Western and South Australia. It was not until the publication of the 1985 Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia, more than two decades after the final tests, that the extent of Australian government collusion was revealed, typified by Menzies’ ‘complete’ acceptance that Australia be entirely excluded from technical information about the tests. This submission to an allied foreign state enacts the technocratic power of nuclear, which pitches influence disproportionally towards those with technical knowledge and renders those without it mute and nakedly vulnerable to, in the case of nuclear arms, annihilation………………………………
The Albanese government’s silence on the presence of nuclear weapons aboard B-52s at RAAF Tindal regurgitates the United States’s policy so as to allow it to skirt its democratic responsibility to inform the public of potential nuclear escalation. Extensive control of messaging and media across the decade-long nuclear testing campaign by Menzies on behalf of the United Kingdom, particularly regarding its true health risks, denied Australians the opportunity to establish informed opinions on the tests. The drive to ignorance common to both Menzies’s and Albanese’s nuclear policy strategies has been achieved via the interiorisation of allied foreign states’ intelligence protocols. This techno-scientific rationale dangerously licences executives to accelerate nuclear proliferation beyond the forum of public debate to which it belongs, and into reality. https://arena.org.au/australias-technocratic-drive-to-nuclear-ignorance/
American or Trump’s values, or are they the same?
Crispin Hull, 11 Feb 25 https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2025/02/10/american-or-tumps-values-or-are-they-the-same/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column
Australia can now either grimace and bear it for four years pretending nothing has happened; or face reality and question whether AUKUS and the US alliance more generally are worth it.
ANZUS and AUKUS were, from the start, purportedly based on “shared values”. Less than a month into the Donald Trump presidency can we put our hands on our hearts and say, “We share values with the US, and we will spill blood and treasure for those values”?
The acid question now is: to what extent are Trump’s values American values?
Can they be separated as if there is a separate pocket of American values – the rule of law; the separation of powers; freedom of the press; international order; liberal democracy and its spread throughout the world; and the helping hand to people and countries less fortunate?
It is difficult to see how.
The assertion by Trump of his “values” has attracted dozens of lawsuits in less than a month. He acts unlawfully; he bullies; he acts with cruel indifference to human suffering; he acts capriciously and vindictively and without diplomacy.
Trump is reversing 400 years of progress in governance: the rule of law; and the principle that those who are governed owe their loyalty to the law and not to the ruler and that those who govern do so with the consent of the governed and owe their loyalty to the law and the people not to themselves.
The time has come for the allies of the US to ask: what are the passing Trump values that we do not share that will disappear and what values, under Trump, have transmogrified into American values. After all, that is what Trump asserts: that his values are American values.
And, let’s face, a majority of voters voted for Trump.
If Trump values are now American values and American values Trump values, does Australia want to be a part of it? Is Australia safe relying on a new transactional America that sees everything through the selfish prism of only what is good for America, or more narrowly what is good for Trump.
Surely it is dangerous to presume that there are some underlying intrinsically good Amercian values that transcend Trump and will re-emerge when he is gone – when the chances are that this Trump administration will have trashed America’s constitutional framework and electoral processes so badly that the next election, if there is one, will be Trump’s for the taking, with the constitutional prohibition against third terms ignored. Or it will be a shoe-in for his anointed successor – probably JD Vance.
Surely, a better, safer, and more morally sustainable position would be for Australia to suspend the alliance until we can truly say that we have “shared values”.
How do we know that contributing militarily to any US international action is nothing more than Australian blood and treasure being expended to enhance Trump’s personal real-estate empire? He wants to buy Greenland; make Canada the 51st state; and overrun Gaza.
The treatment of Canada is alarming. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s desire to make Canada a 51st state “is a real thing”. Remember Trump referred to Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau”.
He threatened Canada with crippling tariffs They have been suspended, but you cannot undo the threat. The relationship dynamic is forever changed because threats (economic, violent, or psychological) destroy trust.
If he can treat Canada, the US’s closest neighbour geographically, linguistically, and historically in that way, surely Australia is no more than a bit piece in the American game of global dominance and economic exploitation.
Australia should now also look at its alliance with the US against the background of history. Against that it is alarming: Trump is not a passing aberration but part of a continuum of some deep-seated ugly American traits.
It starts with the Declaration of Independence when “all men are created equal” excluded women and slaves. Then the Constitution was framed with a deep suspicion of the mass of people and set up an Electoral College to elect the President, rather than by the people directly.
Violence, racism and guns have dominated US history, beginning with the dispossession and genocidal cruelty against the indigenous population. Shortly after fighting a civil war over slavery, the south reverted to segregationist racism that lasted into the 1960s.
In the 19th century, the US was a vicious colonial occupier of the Philippines, In the 20th century, rampant capitalism tipped the US into the Great Recession. Selfish America refused to join the fight against racist Nazism and Japanese fascism until it was itself directly attacked.
Yes, Australia benefited from the US joining the fight against Japan, but the US did not do it to help Australia; that was a side-effect. It just used Australia as a base for its efforts to counter Japan’s threat to the US.
What if our naïve belief in US goodness and exceptionalism is misguidedly founded upon those four or five years of US munificence immediately after World War II despite a 250-year violent history of a male, white, Christian assertion of supremacy?
In those brief years after World War II, the US led the foundation of the United Nations; set up the international rules-based order leading to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
The US led the way promoting peace, law, harmony, and immense generosity in adopting the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe and a benign, forgiving occupation of Japan.
The US has benefitted and traded off that immediate sunlit post-war image for way longer than its used-by date. And US allies have fallen for it.
Later decades gave us the Korean war; the Vietnam War; Iraq; and Afghanistan. It gave us the Bay of Pigs and numerous other ill-founded, unwarranted interferences in small nations to promote US economic interests under the guise of promoting democracy over communism. The incessant US blood-spilling belligerence went on and on, and Australia was sucked into it at great cost to our blood and treasure.
Do we really now want to contribute to a genocidal expulsion of two million Palestinians so Trump’s America can erect a hotel-strewn shoreline in Gaza for Israel and exploit the rights to newly found oil and gas offshore?
Under Trump, the AUKUS deal takes on a different complexion. Australia, under then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, was stupid enough to sign up to an asymmetrical deal where we pay (and have in fact mostly paid) $A4 billion to US shipyards to help them hasten the construction of Virginia-class nuclear submarines of which we are supposed to get three. But this would be contingent on the President of the day certifying that US would not need the submarine.
Does anyone imagine that transactional Trump would allow any submarines to go to Australia without some further payment or supplication?
The US does not protect Australia, it uses us – and puts us in harm’s way in doing so.
Perhaps we should just be honest and say we do not care about shared values or morality we just want protection and we are willing to pay for it – like some nervous shop owner being stood over by a gangster.
But I think Australia is better than that and that, in the face of the Trumpian wrecking ball, we should suspend AUKUS and the US alliance, or at least have an inquiry into them. Disruptive surprises need not be the sole purview of the attention-seeking and attention-demanding man in the Oval Office.
A former Miss America takes her nuclear sales pitch to audiences in Australia
By Hilary Whiteman, CNN, February 6, 2025, Brisbane, Australia,
Nuclear engineer and former Miss America Grace Stanke has entered the fierce debate in Australia over its future energy policy with a 10-day national tour extolling the benefits of nuclear power in a country where it’s been banned for almost 30 years.
The speaking tour is familiar territory for the 22-year-old former beauty queen, who said she studied nuclear engineering as a “flex,” but now works for US energy giant Constellation as a spokesperson and as an engineer on its nuclear team.
Her recent arrival comes at a delicate time in Australia, months before a national election that could put the opposition Liberal Party in power, along with its promises to build seven nuclear power stations – upending the current Labor government’s plan to rely on renewable energy and gas.
For several days, Stanke has been speaking to hundreds of Australians, in events organized by Nuclear for Australia (NFA), a charity founded by 18-year-old Will Shackel, who has received backing from a wealthy Australian pro-nuclear entrepreneur.
Most talks were well-attended by attentive crowds, but not all audience members were impressed by Stanke’s message.
As she started to speak in Brisbane last Friday, a woman in the audience began shouting, becoming the first of several people to be ejected from the room as other attendees booed and jeered. One woman who was physically pushed from the premises by a security guard has since filed a formal complaint.
……………Those against nuclear power say it’s too expensive, too unsafe and too slow to replace Australia’s coal-fired power stations that would need to keep burning for several more years until nuclear plants came online.
………………….A numbers game
Australia banned nuclear energy in 1998 as part of a political deal to win approval for the country’s first and only nuclear research facility that’s still operating in southern Sydney.
A change in government in an election, to be held before mid-May, would see seven nuclear reactors built in five states to provide power alongside renewable energy – a bold shift in direction that would not only require changes to federal law, but amendments to laws in states where premiers oppose nuclear power.
According to the plan proposed by Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton, the nuclear reactors would be funded by 331 billion Australian dollars ($206 billion) in public money and the first could be working by 2035.
Both forecasts are disputed as underestimates by the government acting on the advice of the country’s independent science agency – the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) – which says renewables are still the cheapest and the most efficient way for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
…………………..“I do believe that a strong grid requires both renewables and nuclear energy combined,” Ms Stanke said, referring to the argument for a “baseload” energy source that doesn’t rely on unpredictable weather.
That argument is challenged by experts worldwide, who say the need for “baseload” energy is an outdated concept, and that stability can be achieved by other means, including batteries.
……………………………………………..Advance, a conservative campaign group that says it works to counter “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” is promoting a 48-minute documentary it claims tells the “untold stories” of farmers whose “lives have been upended by the rapid rollout of wind and solar projects.”
………………………………….Rural areas where opposition is building to renewable projects are fertile ground for Shackel and his nuclear campaign. He’s already visited some areas earmarked for power stations under the Liberal proposal. And while he says NFA isn’t politically aligned with either of the major parties, he accepts he’s doing some of the groundwork to bring the community on side………………………….
Nuclear ‘foolishness’
Bringing a former Miss America to Australia was part of a plan to raise support for nuclear power among Australian women, who according to one survey are far less enthusiastic than men about the proposal.
According to several people who attended sessions in various states, the audience was dominated by older men, many of whom didn’t seem to need convincing.
Jane McNicol, the first protester escorted from the room in Brisbane, told CNN she’s been an anti-nuclear campaigner since the 1980s. She said she stood up to “ensure that this foolishness does not take off.”
“It’s just a way of spinning the fossil fuel industry out for a bit longer, and we cannot afford to do that,” she said. “You can see how the climate is collapsing around us. Look at Los Angeles. Those poor people over there lost everything.”
Others said the panel – which included local nuclear experts – made generalizations and didn’t get to the nub of issues specific to their area, like the potential strain they say a nuclear power station could have on resources in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.
“There is literally no water for a nuclear power station. The existing allocation is already committed to mine repair,” said Adrian Cosgriff, a member of community advocacy group Voices of the Valley, who attended the Melbourne talk.
“Australians know nuclear power exists. That’s fine. It’s just not suitable for here. That’s kind of the argument,” he said.
David Hood, a civil and environmental engineer who attended the Brisbane talk, said: “Renewables are working right now. We can’t wait 10 to 20 years for higher cost and risky nuclear energy.”
Stanke and Shackel delivered a parliamentary briefing in Parliament House, Canberra on Wednesday, to politicians and aides across the political spectrum.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was unsurprisingly not in attendance, having already labelled his political rival’s nuclear proposal as “madness” and a “fantasy, dreamed-up to delay real action on climate change.”……………. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/06/australia/australia-nuclear-debate-grace-stanke-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
Confused about nuclear energy? The fossil fuel industry is trying to mislead women.
by Madeline Hislop, https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/confused-about-nuclear-energy-the-fossil-fuel-industry-is-trying-to-mislead-women/ 10 Feb 25
An advertising campaign targeting women ahead of the federal election is promoting misleading information about nuclear energy.
New analysis undertaken by the Climate Council shows that 63 per cent of all nuclear energy advertising active across Facebook and Instagram as of January 2025, was viewed by women.
The ads are largely being driven by the Get Clear on Nuclear group, which is backed by the Minerals Council of Australia, a peak mining lobby group.
The ads are part of a misinformation campaign targeting women voters to undermine their confidence in renewables and promote nuclear energy and gas as false solutions to the climate crisis.
Speaking to Women’s Agenda, CEO of the Climate Council Amanda McKenzie said the advertising campaign is using misinformation to compel women to vote for the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy.
“What [our analysis] indicates is that it’s being pushed specifically towards women, and it’s largely driven by the Minerals Council,” she said.
“That’s where the funding for those ads is coming from, and I think it reveals what is known in the polling, which is that women tend to be more undecided in their vote, and that women need to be persuaded if Australia was to go nuclear.”
Polling shows women are unconvinced about nuclear energy and are more likely to consider nuclear to be high risk and high cost.
“Women are quite inherently skeptical of nuclear power as a proposal,” McKenzie said.
“I think women have a lot of valid concerns about the risks of nuclear reactors, whether that’s concerns around disaster risk, toxic waste, cost blowouts or the length of time it takes to build nuclear. And I think women feel a bit left in the dark when it comes to the Coalition’s nuclear scheme.”
Despite some claims the ads are making, McKenzie says that all the evidence, including from the CSIRO, shows us that nuclear power is the most expensive form of new power. On top of that, the Coalition’s policy would see Australia remain reliant on fossil fuels until at least 2036.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has pledged to build seven publicly-owned nuclear power plants in locations across the country if he is elected Prime Minister this year. The first of these plants would be operational by 2036, Dutton claims, although experts have questioned this date and suggested it is more likely to be the 2040s.
McKenzie said it’s important to know that over the last few years, Australia has moved to 40 per cent renewable power for our whole economy. And we can get to nearly 100 per cent renewable power within the 2030s.
“Nuclear wouldn’t come online until the 2040s, so it’s inherently a big delay in changing our energy system,” McKenzie says. “Our coal fired generators—all of the ones that are the most polluting energy source—are all slated to retire because they’re very old, by the end of the 2030s.”
“We have this urgent climate crisis because of the pollution that all of those fossil fuels are creating, and we’re actually underway in solving the problem now.
“The main message for women is that there is actually progress that has been made. The energy system is changing and becoming cleaner, but we need to double down on that this decade if we’re going to safeguard our kids’ future.”
Women are not being exposed to the facts
Ahead of the election, McKenzie said she is concerned that women are not being exposed to the information they need to make informed decisions on energy policy.
She says the Get Clear on Nuclear advertising is attempting to persuade women on nuclear power, but it’s misleading.
“The advertising is really being designed to try and persuade women, but our concern is that women are not being exposed to the facts,” she says.
“There is this sort of David and Goliath battle between groups like ours, who are representing the community, trying to educate the community with facts and with scientists versus industry bodies that are trying to push ideas that are going to benefit their vested interests.”
There are also many unanswered questions about nuclear, McKenzie says.
“Where will the toxic radioactive waste be buried? Which communities will the trucks drive through when they carry that toxic rate waste? Will the proposal for seven nuclear power plants be the full story?” she says. “Because actually, you would need far more nuclear plants if you were genuinely going to be powering Australia with nuclear.”
“There’s a sense that there’s a downplaying of risks, and women want those sorts of questions answered.”
Nuclear news this week
Some bits of goodnews – The world has probably passed “peak air pollution”. Solar overtakes coal in Europe for the first time in 2024. Nine new protected areas across South America.
TOP STORIES.
As China and the U.S. Race Toward A.I. Armageddon, Does It Matter Who Wins?
How Australia’s CANDU Conservatives Fell in Love with Canadian Nuclear.Trump Says He’ll Audit the Pentagon-Will it prove to be a bridge too far?–
It’s money that has stopped nuclear power, not planning problems.
Climate. Hottest January on record shocks scientists. Half a degree rise in global warming will triple area of Earth that is ‘too hot for humans’. Greenland ice sheet cracking more rapidly than ever, study shows. Children ‘gripped by climate change anxiety’
Noel’s notes. Swallow the nuclear spin, baby, swallow the spin! My favourite despicable Australian politician (Richard Marles).
AUSTRALIA. Explained: Why nuclear power has been banned in Australia for more than 25 years. Honest Government Ad | Nuclear – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqVVBUdW84 Lies, damned lies and Coalition energy economics: Dutton’s latest nuclear claim slammed . More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2025/02/04/australian-nuclear-news-headlines-february-4-11/
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| CLIMATE. UAE Turns to Satellites to Shield Region’s Only Nuclear Plant From Climate Risks. |
| ECONOMICS. France’s top audit body questions feasibility of EDF’s nuclear plans. New UK data sends nuclear warning for Australia . |
| EMPLOYMENT. Nuclear delusion in Ynys Môn will deny islanders green jobs. |
| ENERGY. With calls for nuclear, are Scottish Labour stuck in the 70s? |
| ENVIRONMENT. Concern UK’s AI ambitions could lead to water shortages. Requiem for the trees. |
| EVENTS. 15 – 29 March – 2025 Virtual Film Festival: The Untold Stories of Nuclear Weapons |
| POLITICS. ‘Build baby build’, says UK PM as he sets out nuclear plan. NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE: SOLAR REVOLUTION.UK Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power. Starmer pledges to ‘build, baby, build’ as green groups criticise nuclear plans. Starmer’s “anti-democratic” push to put Nuclear Reactors incommunities without consultation. The twelve ideal sites for mini nuclear reactors, according to an expert. Planners recommended against nuclear plant in 2019 citing fears for Welsh language. Is “Bad Faith”‘s Council for National Policy the Atlas Network’s half-brother? |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Trump, Who Tore Up Iran Nuclear Deal, Calls for Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump says he wants new nuclear deal letting Iran ‘prosper’. Trump and the global nuclear order |
| SAFETY.Ministers will relax rules to build small nuclear reactors – ALSO AT…. https://antinuclearinfo.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=298129&action=edit&calypsoify=1 Russian attacks near Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure heighten scrutiny of Kyiv’s preparedness. IAEA chief, in Kyiv, warns of nuclear risk from attacks on Ukraine grid.If DOGE goes nuclear. Incident. Two workers contaminated with radioactive material at Borssele nuclear plant |
| SECRETS and LIES. Hinkley Point plays down reports of suspected ‘spy’ at nuclear power plant. Engineer who worked on Hinkley Point C nuclear project quizzed on suspicion of being a Russian spy. |
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Falling space debris is increasingly threatening airplanes, researchers say. |
| SPINBUSTER. UK’s new government taxonomy will greenwash nuclear.A former Miss America takes her nuclear sales pitch to audiences in Australia. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Google deletes policy against using AI for weapons or surveillance. OpenAI Strikes Deal With US Government to Use Its AI for Nuclear Weapon Security. |
| URANIUM. Uranium fever collides with industry’s dark past in Navajo country. |
| WASTES. Nuclear Dump “Reveal” of “Areas of Focus.” A Nuclear Dump Anywhere is a Nuclear Dump Everywhere – #GDFOFF. Threat of nuke dump falls on Cumbrian and Lincolnshire rural communities. Hidden history of RAF airfield may be lost in latest nuke dump plan. Council votes to end Holderness nuclear waste talks. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Doomsday Clock Needs Adjusting. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. The national missile defense fantasy—again. Trump Asks Congress To Approve $1 Billion Arms Transfer to Israel. Local opinion: Raytheon pushes The Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. Top Pentagon contractors poised for gains as Trump pushes missile shield expansion. US failed to track weapons sent to Ukraine – Reuters. Elon Musk Can Find His $2-Trillion Federal Spending Cut in Nuclear Weapons. Elon Musk On The Future Of Warfare – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfs11RIKtI8 North Korean leader Kim Jong Un vows to further develop nuclear forces |
Going nuclear: Meet Grace Stanke, the American pageant queen on a mission in Australia
COMMENT. This article is pretty good for SCRUTINY, giving both the nuclear propaganda in spades, but also the environmental, safety, economic and political objections to it.
It does show Grace Stanke as a clever operator, with her giving simplistic, but impressive sounding pro-nuclear spin
By Maddison Leach, Feb 8, 2025, https://www.9news.com.au/national/nuclear-power-australia-miss-america-grace-stanke/74f1791d-be18-420f-8a76-5026bb3de4c1
Nuclear power has been banned in Australia since the turn of the century. Former Miss America Grace Stanke is the unlikely figure who wants to change that.The 22-year-old American has been in Australia for over a week, advocating for nuclear power at events hosted by Australia’s largest nuclear power advocacy organisation, Nuclear for Australia.
Her arrival seems perfectly timed for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Coalition as they promote their nuclear plans ahead of the 2025 federal election.
If elected, the Coalition says it plans to build taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors at seven sites around Australia. The first is slated to start operating in 2035.
Mr Dutton has said the plan will help lower carbon emissions and make electricity cheaper for Australians, however climate experts have challenged those claims.
Hailing from the US, which home to 94 operable nuclear reactors and remains the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, Stanke wants to see Australia follow in her home nation’s footsteps and embrace nuclear power.
“This is a necessary part of the future,” she told 9news.com.au, adding that the federal and state bans on nuclear power “baffle” her.
“Nuclear is safe, it’s effective, it’s reliable, it requires a small amount of land, it provides high paying jobs and helps build up strong communities around it.”
With a degree in nuclear engineering and a Miss America title (she was crowned in 2023), Stanke is already the poster girl for nuclear advocacy in the US.
“People look at a woman and they make assumptions,” Stanke said, then laughed.
“Usually they are not expecting me to speak about nuclear energy or nuclear engineering, so it is a ton of fun.”
The Wall Street Journal called her the “new face of nuclear energy” in 2023 and she appeared on the Forbes 30 under 30 for Energy list the following year.
Inspired by her impact in the US, Nuclear for Australia’s 18-year-old founder Will Shackel flew her to Australia in a bid to further the conversation around nuclear power here too.
That has meant addressing environmental and financial concerns around the Coalition’s nuclear plans.
Mr Dutton claims the plan will slash energy bills but research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) suggests it would actually increase Aussie households’ energy bills by about $665 annually.
The Coalition also claims the plan would reduce Australia’s carbon emissions but energy experts estimate that extending the life of coal plants as part of the plant could produce 1.7 billion tonnes of extra emissions by 2050.
Stanke questioned these figures, citing studies from the Nuclear Energy Institute in the US as proof nuclear power is a cost-effective and “emissions free” energy source.
“To produce your entire lifetime’s amount of electricity, we’ll only create enough waste that it fits inside of a soda can,” she said in response to environmental concerns.
Though she acknowledges that building the reactors would come with financial and environmental costs, Stanke is focused on the end result: “clean energy” for millions of Australians.
However, there are also questions about how long it would take Australia to build seven nuclear reactors.
The Coalition plans to have the first up and running by 2035 but CSIRO experts argue that it’s unlikely any of the plants would be ready until at least the early 2040s.
It takes an average of nine years to build a nuclear power station according to the Australian Conservation Foundation, plus another 10 years for planning and licensing, but Stanke firmly believes Australia can get these reactors built within a decade.
“I would completely disagree on the idea that Australia is not a nuclear nation,” she said.
She noted that Australia’s only nuclear reactor OPAL in Lucas Heights, which opened in 2007, was built in just nine years and said that “if Australians can do that in nine years”, this country can surely “do even better in the future”.
However, OPAL was build on the site of an existing nuclear reactor while the Coalition’s proposed reactors would be built on coal-fired power stations.
And the Coalition doesn’t just have to build these nuclear reactors; it also has to regulate and staff them, and overturn federal and state bans on nuclear power.
It will be easier said than done given that Labor, the Greens and some independents oppose nuclear energy, as do many state premiers and opposition leaders.
As well as the financial, environmental and legal concerns, some Australians fear the potential community and health risks associated with building nuclear reactors across the country.
Though she’s received some pushback from everyday Aussies and anti-nuclear groups while touring Australia, the 22-year-old hopes her visit will inspire more open dialogue about the possibilities nuclear power presents for Australia.
“This deserves a fair discussion [and] I’m here to help start that conversation.”
Explained: Why nuclear power has been banned in Australia for more than 25 years
COMMENT. This news item from 9 news is a rare example of SCRUTINY, in that, although it basically delivers the facts (Stenography), it shows some insight into the arguments and reasons behind Australian attitudes.
For a commercial media article, this is remarkably unbiased.
By Maddison Leach Feb 9, 2025, https://www.9news.com.au/national/why-is-nuclear-power-banned-in-australia-explained/9f758cf3-0677-4787-bfce-a5
Opposition accuses Labor of scare campaign over Nuclear, PM says he holds economic concerns
Nuclear power is shaping up to be a hot button issue in the 2025 federal election, with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Coalition pushing a plan to build seven nuclear reactors across Australia if elected.
Such reactors are currently banned at a federal level, meaning the Coalition would have overturn federal and even some state laws to build their proposed reactors.
Here’s everything you need to know about the nuclear power bans in Australia.
Why is nuclear power banned in Australia?
Nuclear power as an energy source has been banned in Australia since the late 1990s, when Prime Minister John Howard’s Coalition government passed two laws prohibiting it.
First came an amendment to the National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act (1998) which banned the development of any new nuclear power sites in Australia.
The following year, the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) introduced new rules prohibiting the construction or operation of any facilities that generated nuclear power, fabricated nuclear fuel, enriched uranium or processed nuclear waste.
At the time these laws were passed, there was only one site in Luca Heights, south of Sydney. It remains the site of Australia’s only nuclear reactor, which is used for medical and industrial research.
Some state governments have also introduced additional nuclear prohibitions.
Which countries have banned nuclear power?
Countries that have banned the construction of new nuclear power plants like Australia include Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Norway and Serbia.
Several other nations have also announced plans to phase-out nuclear power, including Belguim, Germany, the Phillipines and Switzerland.
Why is Australia anti-nuclear?
There was a dramatic shift in public opinion on nuclear power after the catastrophic Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
That shift likely contributed to the introduction of anti-nuclear laws in Australia in 1998 and 1999, which have remained in place ever since.
Modern Australian attitudes towards nuclear power are mixed but the majority of anti-nuclear sentiment centres around the financial and environmental costs.
It would cost billions to establish a nuclear power network in Australia and though nuclear power is considered “clean” (it doesn’t produce carbon emissions), it is not renewable.
Is it illegal to build a nuclear reactor in Australia?
Yes. The National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act (1998) and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), as well as some additional state legislations, prohibit the construction or operation of nuclear reactors.
Is there support for nuclear power in Australia?
Some. The Coalition is leading support for a nuclear future for Australia with its nuclear power proposal, which would see seven nuclear reactors built across the country.
Nuclear for Australia, the country’s largest nuclear power advocacy organisation, has voiced support for the plan.
What is Peter Dutton proposing?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Coalition are proposing overturning existing laws banning nuclear power in Australia in order to build seven new nuclear plants.
“This will make electricity reliable, it will make it more consistent, cheaper, for Australians and it will help us decarbonise as a trading economy as we must,” Dutton said.
“The fact is we can deliver a plan which is going to keep the lights on and we have a plan and a vision for our country which will help grow businesses, not close them down.”
The Coalition has claimed the plan is 44 per cent cheaper than the government’s renewable energy plan and would lower Australians’ electricity bills.
However, the Coalition’s figures are based on a scenario that produces about 45 per cent less energy by 2050 than renewables.
What does nuclear power cost?
Modelling from the Coalition suggests its nuclear policy would cost Australia more than $300 billion, significantly less than the government’s renewables plan.
But the CSIRO’s draft GenCost 2024-25 report projected that building nuclear reactors would actually cost at least twice as much as renewable power in Australia.
By 2040, it predicted nuclear-generated electricity would cost about $145-$238 per MWh by 20204, compared to $22-$53 per MWh for solar, and $45-$78 per MWh for wind.
What does nuclear power mean for the climate/environment?
Nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses, however it’s not renewable as the process of fission (which generates nuclear energy) requires fuel, typically uranium.
Though Australia has one of the world’s largest uranium reserves, it is a finite resource and therefore isn’t renewable.
Nuclear waste also poses an environmental threat, especially in the case of a disaster like the Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Is “Bad Faith”‘s Council for National Policy the Atlas Network’s half-brother?
Ed COMMENT. I put this article up on the Australian website. You might think that it has nothing to do with Australia.
But it does! The fascist chaos now developing in the USA could spread to Australia, as the Atlas Network promotes its Australian off-shoot “Advance”. Advance will funnel $millions into Trumpian-style propaganda, to influence the coming Australian federal election.
The long game of the Mont Pelerin Society that spawned the Atlas Network became colonising government and the law, to make them the servants of the largest players in the economy.
February 6, 2025 Lucy Hamilton, https://theaimn.net/is-bad-faiths-council-for-national-policy-the-atlas-networks-half-brother/
The Council for National Policy is the ultra-secret body tracked in the documentary Bad Faith. Are the Mont Pelerin Society fingerprints there just by chance?
The chaos that is erupting from the people around Trump was forecast in the 900 pages of Project 2025 for those paying attention. The firehose of brutality and stupidity is coming too fast for observers to encompass. Whether it’s 25 year olds with the power to alter code in the Bureau of Fiscal Service or a Christian Nationalist-driven freeze on all public spending or trying to deport Navajo people, the whole project reeks of reckless cruelty and apparent irrationality.
Just as Ronald Reagan implemented 2/3 of the first Mandate for Leadership, Donald Trump implemented 2/3 of his first iteration. Now the Mandate is known as Project 2025 and it’s no longer just a “business republican” project. It’s a Christian Nationalist project too. And 2/3 of the first executive orders of this Trump administration came from Project 2025.
The man likely to take the helm of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, was revealed as the Christian Nationalist radical he is in this undercover sting operation last year. The chaos is intended to continue. He has said he intends to put career civil servants “in trauma.” He also intends to use the military to crush protests.
This domestic chaos will be deadly; the freeze on USAID spending will kill people sooner. These radicals around Trump do not care: their eugenicist beliefs run deep. It’s a longterm goal: this 2006 annual Atlas Network report contains an essay repeating disdain for foreign aid as a failed concept by (MPS member since 1984, erstwhile president and critical figure in the growth of Atlas and several junktanks), Leonard Liggio. There is no reflection on how many nations need foreign aid because of MPS-driven restructuring and neoliberal interventions to keep those nations impoverished and dependent.
Ronald Reagan, the first de facto Atlas Network US president said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” The Trump apparatchiks are trying to make that a vicious reality.
The long game of the Mont Pelerin Society that spawned the Atlas Network became colonising government and the law, to make them the servants of the largest players in the economy. They sold the mission as “freedom” in a “free market,” with “small government” staying out of the little guy’s way. That was not the real intent. Democratic projects, rights or a decent life for the individual (below enabler class) were intended by few in the project. Neofeudalism is a more apt label. You are not even to be allowed to protest your (or others’) immiseration.
People committed to the neoliberal project have a firm commitment to making government look ineffective and wasteful. It may be that government efforts to tackle the pandemic risked making people trust government. The steps towards a UBI might have stung badly for people who believe government spending should only serve the already rich. It is likely also that coercive measures like lockdowns, mask wearing and vaccine mandates triggered their socialism-alarms. There is extensive evidence of junktank partners’ investmentin pandemic disinformation and the fighting of public health measures including masking.
It’s possible that the greater inclusivity of a pluralist society might have been enough on its own to repulse the narrow-minds of this machinery; it could be that the pandemic broke them.
Either way, after the worst of the pandemic, one of the Atlas Network’s most pivotal junktanks appointed a Rad Trad Catholic extremist with connections to Opus Dei as its president, in September 2021. Kevin Roberts was an Atlas operative before this. He used to run the Atlas Texas Public Policy Foundation.
He was also however, by 2022, already on the Council for National Policy board.
The Bad Faith (2024) documentary reveals in grim detail how the Council for National Policy (CNP) was the theocratic machine that built the Moral Majority. It was the network that brought together the extremist Evangelical preachers of that movement, media organisations and funders with some of the Republican Party’s most effective strategists. The documentary is based on journalist Anne Nelson’s extensive investigations in Shadow Network.
Key figures amongst the Republican Party strategists that founded the CNP belonged to the Mont Pelerin Society, just as the key operators in the Atlas Network did – and do.
(Atlas has, since it was founded in 1981, vacuumed up other junktanks and networks into its web of shared strategies and personnel connections: whether they are Atlas spawned or interlinked can be complex to disentangle. Whether CNP was in part an MPS project at its foundation is opaque. It could be that class interests of a small band of operatives led to overlaps in strategising. The two networks are, however, overtly operating in concert now with both strongly represented in the Project 2025 Advisory Board.)
Catholic zealot Paul Weyrich co-founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973. Many historic clips of Weyrich uttering his extreme beliefs are to be viewed in Bad Faith. In 1981, the CNP was founded to galvanise the 1978 undertaking to use the issue of abortion to create a Christian Republican voter bloc. (In 1978, abortion was a fringe Catholic issue, of little interest to Evangelicals.)
Weyrich’s co-founder at Heritage was Catholic Edwin Feulner, later an MPS president, but a member from 1972. He is also a CNP member.
The CNP’s Republican founders included Episcopalian (Anglican) Morton Blackwell, an MPS member from 2007, who created the Atlas Network-and-CNP’s Leadership Institute founded in 1979. It aims to increase “the number and effectiveness of conservative leaders in the public policy process. More than 300,000 conservatives have become leaders through Leadership Institute training.”
Fellow CNP founder was Evangelical? Edwin Meese III who worked with Atlas’s Ronald Reagan from 1966, and was later one of his attorney-generals. Meese was involved with Heritage from 1988. A third was Catholic Richard Viguerie who invented the direct mail scam that fostered the demonising of Democrats to scare grannies out of their pittance.
Both Atlas and the CNP receive funding from Charles Koch and his circle including the Bradleys. On the CNP leaked membership list, Lawson Bader is identified. He is an MPS member and has been president and CEO of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund since 2015. Donors Trust is known as the “dark money ATM of the right.” The Mercer family, that funded Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica, is also listed as a CNP donor. The united Devos and Prince families are key donors. Betsy DeVos has roles at several Atlas junktanks. Peter Thiel, tech plutocrat, is now a significant funder of Donors Trust.
Boeing, Coors, Cinemark, Forbes media and Morgan Stanley all have senior figures affiliated with CNP. (Coors money was central to the Heritage Foundation’s funding, with Joseph Coors, Evangelical and white supremacist, a co-founder.)
Currently the CNP and Atlas share several critical partner organisations apart from Heritage and Leadership such as the Federalist Society which has been described as creating the imperial juristocracy around Donald Trump’s second presidency. Another is the American Legislative Exchange (ALEC) that produces reactionary and anti-labour model bills for state legislatures to reproduce. A thirdis Americans For Tax Reform, which Grover Norquist (CNP member) founded at Ronald Reagan’s “request.”
The Acton Institute, Media Research Center, Capital Research Center, Buckeye Institute, National Center for Public Policy Research, Center for Security Policy, Young America’s Foundation, American Conservative Union (parent of CPAC), Discovery Institute and Americans for Prosperity are other joint members. Tea Party Patriots is a CNP member that is spawned as an astroturf outfit out of Atlas’s Freedomworks.
The CNP’s members include the Club for Growth, which is another Koch-supported entity. It funds Republican candidates who fight labour rights. The farce of fighting for the working man that Trump’s campaign feigns is exposed by the many junktanks here strategising to suppress workers.(1)
The CNP is a particularly ugly partner for the Atlas Network which advertises itself as “strengthening the worldwide freedom movement.” It unites the NRA with Turning Point USA with a range of hate groups promoting Islamophobia and homophobia. Its Christofascist members fight rights for women as well.
A key member is the Alliance Defending Freedom which the SPLC summarises as having supported “the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.” Not much freedom there.
The Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI) founded by Senator Jim DeMint, former Heritage Foundation president, in 2017, is a CNP member since 2020. This sub-network has spawned a range of extreme election denial and reactionary policy junktanks. One notable CPI entity is America First Legal, white supremacist Stephen Miller’s critical creation. It is largely funded by Bradley donations.
One of the significant names on the CNP list is Steve Bannon. He has been fighting for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” for years. His esoteric traditionalist beliefs call for the destruction of the age of slaves (democracy) to be replaced by the age of priests. His ally Curtis Yarvin, inspiration of many of the tech-fascist oligarchs, argues a CEO-monarch should replace the democratic experiment. It looks like Elon Musk thinks that should be him.
Many of the Christofascist organisations and individuals in the CNP are anti-democratic, believing that a theocracy is the answer to America’s ills. There is, at minimum, no freedom of religion allowed.
The destruction around Trump is a genuine threat to American’s democratic experiment.
That Reagan’s Mandate for Leadership should have become Project 2025 is startling on its own. The linking of Atlas’s ostensible campaign for freedom with the CNP’s campaign for theocratic coercion illustrates starkly that the freedom is only for a few.
* * * * *
Mont Pelerin is a secretive, invitation only organisation, but some of its leaked members can be found here. The Council for National Policy is ultra-secretive but its leaked members can be found here.
(1) (Business donors who had captured former Democrat Kirsten Sinema years back seem to have sent her back from early retirement to vote down Biden’s choice for a Labor Relations Board that might have been able to protect workers’ rights into the Trump era.)
This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Falling space debris is increasingly threatening airplanes, researchers say
Rocket bodies tend to be massive and heat resistant, posing an increased risk.
ByJulia Jacobo, February 7, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/falling-space-debris-increasingly-threatening-airplanes-researchers/story?id=118534247
Space debris from rocket bodies orbiting Earth is posing an increased threat to aircraft while falling from space, according to new research.
While the probability of space junk striking an airplane is low, the risk is rising due to increases in both the aviation industry and the space flight industry, according to a paper published in Scientific Reports.
Space junk originates from everything that is launched by human access to outer space — including satellites and equipment for exploration, Aaron Boley, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia and co-director of the Outer Space Institute, told ABC News. Rockets are used to insert satellites into orbit, and a lot of material gets left behind.
“Now that we have such growth in our use of outer space, a lot of the problems associated with that are coming to bear,” said Boley, one of the authors of the paper.
There are probably about 50,000 pieces of space junk the size of a softball or larger floating near Earth, Boley said. When considering objects between a centimeter or half a millimeter, the number is likely in the millions, he said.
The objects in orbit are naturally decaying, much of it “uncontrollably,” Boley said.
“When they re-enter, they break apart and they do not demise entirely in the atmosphere,” Boley said.
When those objects re-enter Earth’s atmosphere, they tend to ablate. As the material burns up, it melts and vaporizes — basically turning into fine particulates, Boley said.
The study focused especially on rocket bodies due to their size. Rocket bodies tend to be massive and heat resistant and pose casualty risks for people on the ground, at sea or in the air.
The research broke down the risks depending on regions of airspace by tracking the highest density of air traffic using 2023 data. Places like Vancouver, Seattle and the Eastern seaboard had about a 25% chance each year of being disrupted by re-entry of space debris, the paper found.
Officials will be able to use that data to determine whether closing airspace is prudent, the authors said.
“Someone has to decide whether they’re going to roll the dice and say this is such a low probability that we don’t need to take any action or out of the abundance of cautiont,” Boley said.
Conversely, taking action and closing down airspace could cause economic disruption and possibly cause other safety issues by diverting flights, Boley added.
Ensuring aviation safety in context of a potential space junk strike was not taken into consideration until the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster, in which the spacecraft broke apart while re-entering the atmosphere.
“Aircraft were flying through that debris after it had broken apart,” Boley said. “…After the fact, when there was the post-analysis, they realized that that was actually a big safety issue for the aircraft in flight.”
The aviation industry is taking space debris into more consideration when making decisions to close airspace. In 2022, Spain and France closed some of the countries’ airspace when a 20-ton rocket body was about to reenter the atmosphere, according to the paper.
The rocket body ended up plummeting into the Pacific Ocean, the researchers said. The closure delayed 645 aircraft for about 30 minutes and diverted some of the planes that were already in the air.
“This disruption is definitely happening, and it’s going to be happening more,” Boley said.
The EPBC Act ‘Impact Assessment’ Report on Federal imposition of N-Subs fails to provide answers to community’s ‘Right to Know’ on nuclear risks facing Port Adelaide
Initial Brief by David Noonan Independent Environment Campaigner 8 Feb 2025. Flawed ‘assessment’ of Osborne / Port Adelaide nuclear submarine site ignores accident risk (David Noonan, Feb. 2025)
The Federal Impact Assessment Report “SUBMARINE CONSTRUCTION YARD STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
OSBORNE, SA” (IAR, 21 Jan 2025) clearly does is not intend to answer lead community concerns over
N-sub nuclear reactor accident risks and radioactive waste storage at Osborne, Port Adelaide.
A deluge of Federal Gov doc’s, a IAR of 200 pages with Appendices of 750 pages, are out for ‘public
consultation’. The proponent Australian Submarine Agency (see ASA web) are to run four Public
Information ‘Drop-In’ Sessions over 19 – 22th Feb. Public input is due in by cob the 17th March.
However, the Federal Gov has ruled a range of lead community concerns as “out of scope” of this
‘Strategic Assessment’, see IAR Section.6 Impact factors 6.16 Radiation (p.6-40 to 6-44).
The management facility for radioactive waste at Osborne, and the disposal pathway for such
radioactive waste, “is considered outside the scope of the Strategic Assessment” (p.6-41).
The IAR says: “Information on potential sources of radiation has been provided to inform, however
does not form part of the Strategic Assessment as these sources will be managed via separate
environmental assessment processes and approvals as necessary.”
The IAR Radioactive waste management section (p.3-19 to 3-21) says: “The facility is to be designed to
have the capacity to manage radioactive material over the 50-year Strategic Assessment timeframe.”
N-sub radioactive wastes may accumulate and stay ‘stored’ at Osborne for decades…
The IAR also mis-represents N-sub radioactive wastes to be stored at Osborne, as: “similar to those
that occur in over 100 locations nationwide, including hospitals, science facilities and universities” (3-
20), and “similar to the waste generated by hospitals and research facilities around Australia” (6-41).
Key health and safety issues are excluded from this EPBC Act public consultation. ASA (p.6-43) is to
conduct a separate ‘Environmental Radiological Assessment’ to license impacts at Osborne. The IAR
(at 6-44) says: “No nuclear actions are included within the Actions or Classes of Actions of the Plan.”
Impacts of commissioning and operation of the ‘power module’ (the nuclear reactor) “is considered
outside the scope of this assessment” (p.3-19 & 6-41) – to be held over for a military nuclear regulator.
The Federal Labor Gov are in denial over N-sub nuclear reactor accident risks. The word ‘accident’
does not even appear in this 200-page IAR. This is a multi-year Federal Gov failure to study and make
public required nuclear accident Emergency response measures and Evacuation plans at Osborne.
See a 2-page Briefer: “Labor imposes AUKUS nuclear submarines while failing to inform the affected
SA community of the health risks they face in a potential reactor accident” (29 July 2024).
Brief sub-heading: ‘SA Emergency workers may face “catastrophic conditions” at a N-Sub accident.’
It is disrespectful of the Federal Gov to continue to push N-sub accident risks onto community across
Lefevre Peninsula and Port Adelaide while only conducting partial impact assessments and limiting
‘public consultation’ to only those aspects that suit Labor’s roil out of the AUKUS N-sub agenda.
The Federal Gov are also now seriously misleading community and misrepresenting nuclear health
and safety risks, see IAR Effects of Radiation p.6-41 and Figure 34 potential health effects p.6-42.
SA State Gov ‘impact’ assessment for the Osborne Submarine Yard concludes ‘No
significant effects’ on community wellbeing, but fails to release nuclear accident studies:
The SA State Gov has released a “Submarine Construction Yard Environmental Impact Statement”
(EIS, Nov 2024, 427 pages, plus 22 x ‘Technical Report’ Appendices) for ‘consultation’ to 17 March. This EIS
process has a ‘YourSAy’ webpage, a Plan SA webpage, and a proponent’s Australian Naval
Infrastructure (ANI) page that promotes the three ASA ‘Drop-In’ Info Sessions over 19 to 22 Feb.
The EIS claims “there is no risk to people or the environment of radiation exposure” (EIS Summary p.9)
from ‘nuclear-powered propulsion systems’ on-site testing of N-sub nuclear reactors at Osborne.
The EIS Ch.23 ‘Social Impact Assessment’ concludes there are “No significant effects” on community
wellbeing (EIS Summary p.36-37), and no danger to people or property across an ‘immediately
impacted community’ who live or work in North Haven, Largs Bay and Semaphore; or in the ‘wider
community’ within Greater Adelaide who it is said ‘may feel some real or perceived broader impacts’.
These claims and concocted conclusions derive from an abject failure to recognise the effects and
impacts of a potential N-sub nuclear reactor accident, with required Evacuation Zone planning. The
word ‘evacuation’ appears 3 times in the 400-page EIS – all to do with flood risks not reactor risks
Why have key public safety accident studies still not been made public for N-subs at Port Adelaide?
Even a visit by a nuclear-powered submarine to a port in Australia requires Emergency response
planning that sets Evacuation Zones for potential nuclear reactor accidents (see a 2-p Briefer).
The SA Premier Hon Peter Malinauskas MP is effectively targeting Osborne Port Adelaide for N-sub
nuclear reactor accident risks, just as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton MP targets Port Augusta for
his nuclear power reactor accident risks and impacts: see David Noonan’s Public Submission No.261
(14 Nov 2024, 10 pages) to an ongoing Federal “Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia”
The EIS 4.12 Nuclear-powered propulsion systems and radiation exposure from accident (p.85-88)
says (p.85) that it has assessed: “the process to transport, receive, secure, store, install, test and
commission a nuclear-powered propulsion system”, and: “radiation exposure pathways to workers,
the public and non-human biota during construction and operation (including incident scenarios)”.
The EIS admits (p.87): “A loss of fuel element integrity within the power unit, while highly unlikely,
could result in a radiological release direct from the NSRP into the atmosphere”, and cites: “a number
of scenarios that could lead to a radioactive release from the Power Unit have been extensively
modelled by the NSRP Design Authority”, but fails to make these public safety studies public.
At this late stage, it is unacceptable for the SA Gov to fail to consult the public on N-sub nuclear
reactor accident Emergency response measures including required Evacuation Zone planning.
This EIS also assesses N-sub generation and storage of radioactive wastes at Osborne but concludes
“No significant waste management effects have been identified” (see Executive Summary p.28-29; EIS
Ch.16 Waste Management p.262 to 288; and Appendix 1.11 Waste Management 44 pages). The EIS cites a
‘Low-Level’ radioactive waste category that can require waste isolation for up to a 300 year period.
The EIS further admits (p.87): “Loss of control of any liquid or solid waste could result in the release of
radioactive material and therefore pose a hazard to individuals and the environment. … An aquatic
release into the Port River could result in a wider spread of contamination, and would be dependent
on quantity of the release and the tidal flow at the time of the release.”
For further information, see FoE Australia webpage: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/nuclear-subs/
My favourite despicable Australian politician
While there’s a lot of competition for this title, I gotta give it to the outstanding contestant – RICHARD MARLES, – Minister for Defence, and oh my god! – Deputy Prime Minister!
What qualities does Marles bring to this august role?
Well there is a top quality
1 Marles is a master at not answering the question. – Asked about further instalments of $millions to USA for AUKUS, he avoided the question, crapped on about previous agreements. Asked if Hegseth gave any assurances about the submarines arriving on time – he gave a long-winded completely evasive answer. Asked if He had asked whether the $#billion price tag was the final one – – another long evasive non-answer. Avoiding the question – he nearly freaked out when asked about Gaza!
2 Grovelling in front of an American despicable politician, Pete Hegseth, on the “strength of American leadership” – “we are really grateful and excited” [omigawd!]
3 Duplicity. There’s no clarity on what role Richard Marles played in the Albanese government’s fateful decision to follow the Liberal Coalition in the foolish AUKUS arrangment, by which Australian will pay $398billion to the USA for nuclear submarines that will be obsolete well before we get them. At one point, Marles was effusive about PWC
4 Confusion. Asked about humanitarian aid to Pacific countries, Marles explained the military aid being giver. He doesn’t undertsand the difference between militarism and humanitarian aid.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 