Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

The paradox of recent politics

Crispin Hull, 2 February 25

A paradoxical realignment is under way in Australian and US politics. 

Until recently, the Republican Party in the US and the Liberal Party in Australia were the parties of business, entrepreneurs, the professions, and the relatively wealthy. And the Democrats and Labor were the parties of the worker. The Democrats and Labor were always wary of new technology because it invariably costs jobs.

It was a fairly straight-forward labour-capital divide.

Then came some big changes: the rise of China; the threat of global heating; the social revolutions relating to identity (race, gender, nationality, and religion); and the collapse of organised labour.

Global heating was seen by Republicans and Liberals as some trendy, leftie anti-capital nonsense. They saw, with some justification, the rise of China as menacing. They attracted working-class votes based on nationalism and opposition to social causes on racial and sexual equality.

Those changes have thrown up some irreconcilable contradictions.

Private-Sector Economic Rationalist Peter Dutton has a plan under one arm to axe 36,000 “Canberra” public servants. Under the other arm Commissar Dutton he has a plan for massive public ownership of the means of energy production and management with seven nuclear power stations – just so his mates can keep up the profitable burning of fossil fuels for a few more years.

No sensible private-sector organisation will go near the nuclear plan, for obvious reasons. Moreover, only a third of federal public servants work in Canberra. But it sounds good to cut “Canberra” public servants. As if they do nothing – aside from, say, running air-traffic control; policing the borders; running Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the defence forces; doing weather forecasts; and generally making society tick.

It leaves Labor, the party that has usually been unenthusiastic about entrepreneur-driven new technology, embracing and financing private-sector investment in new energy………………………………………………………….

Labor, the party of the environment, has now shelved legislative protection for endangered species and approved dozens of extensions to coal and gas projects while putting its hand on its heart saying it has approved no “new” coal or gas projects.

Despite election promises, Albanese, who “goes after Tories”, has delivered a corruption watchdog that bares its gums in private. And his whistle-blower-protection promises have evaporated. His political finance “reforms” tinker about the edges while continuing to allow big corporations and unions to be puppet-masters.

It is a government that clears the in-tray by moving things into the too-scared basket.

Dutton, meanwhile, the friend of the Australian Jewish Community, cynically weaponises and politicises antisemitic attacks in Australia so he can argue that Albanese is “weak” while stirring up divisions for his own ends. With any luck it will back-fire because the Jewish community is a bit more sophisticated and understanding of the nuances of public policy than the former Queensland policeman.

The attacks, of course, are not coming from racialised Muslims, but far-right, nationalist, self-labelled “Christian” neo-Nazis.

Surely these things mean that Dutton and Albanese have disqualified themselves from leading a majority government. Surely, events of the past three years tell us that a cross-bench holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives will improve government.

If Albanese is Prime Minister, they will demand action on obvious things on pain of being thrown out of office. If Dutton is Prime Minister, they will demand detail, justification, and costings for his nuclear policy or to drop it – again on pain of being removed from office.

How else can the major parties be weaned off the insidious corporate, union, and lobby-group influencers that conspire against the public interest?

The glimmer of hope here is Labor’s massive support of renewable energy. The Australian Energy Market Operator reported this month that coal’s share of electricity generation had fallen below half for the first time. Coal-fired power stations are becoming less reliable and less economic. 

The economics are so obvious that households are taking up solar at an unforeseen rate. And they are telling everyone about their zero power bills. So, it is on an unstoppable roll.  https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2025/02/03/the-paradox-of-recent-politics/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column

February 3, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton defends nuclear costings as opponents warn of power bill hit

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,”


The Age, By Shane Wright, February 2, 2025 

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has claimed his nuclear energy policy would cut power bills by 44 per cent, but analysis by the renewables sector warns it could actually drive up electricity costs by more than $1000 a year for millions of Australians with rooftop solar panels.

Ahead of an election that will be dominated by cost-of-living issues, Dutton said while it would take time for energy prices to fall under his $331 billion plan to build seven government nuclear plants, they would ultimately drive down costs for consumers and business owners.

Modelling commissioned by the Coalition for its plan to build the reactors by the mid-2040s asserts total costs will be 44 per cent lower compared to the mass rollout of renewables. The same modelling did not estimate a reduction in retail power prices.

But Dutton told the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday it was “economics” that lower construction and production costs would lead to a large drop in prices paid by consumers…………………

The modelling, however, has come under fire for its underlying assumptions, including an effective lid on the amount of renewable energy. Renewable energy under the Coalition’s modelling reaches 54 per cent of the total power market by 2050. By the end of last year, it had already hit 46 per cent.

Research to be released on Monday by the Smart Energy Council warns that millions of rooftop solar systems would have to shut off every day to allow the baseload power generated by nuclear reactors to fit into the grid.

It found that non-solar households could pay an extra $665 a year in power prices, while for those with rooftop solar, the bill shock could be more than $1000. Rooftop solar households were forecast to pay an extra $1262 a year in NSW, $1108 in Victoria and $1419 in south-east Queensland.

The higher costs to the more than 4 million rooftop solar households were in part because they would be blocked from feeding power into the energy market, the council said. As nuclear needed to be run constantly, if there was too much energy in the market, the first to be turned off would be rooftop solar, which was the easiest to prevent competing against nuclear.

Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said every person who had invested in rooftop solar would pay far more for their energy if expensive nuclear power was forced into the grid.

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,” he said.

“We know that power bills are going to soar for all Australians because Peter Dutton wants to cap cheap, clean renewable energy and substitute it with expensive, unreliable, polluting coal and gas, while we wait a couple of decades to build their nuclear fantasies.”

The battle over electricity prices is part of a broader debate over the size of government, with Dutton accusing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of overseeing a $347 billion increase in spending and a 36,000 lift in public servants…………………….

Pressed on where he would cut spending, Dutton ruled out an audit but signalled that voters would have to wait until after the election to get final details………

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said part of the increase in spending and public servants included the indexation of the aged pension and extra resources to the Veterans’ Affairs Department, Medicare and to lift housing construction.

He accused Dutton of trying to hide his planned cuts because he knew people would not support them.

“It is extraordinary that he’s saying to the Australian people he wants to cut $350 billion, but they will have to wait until after the election before he would tell them what that is,” he said.https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-defends-nuclear-costings-as-opponents-warn-of-power-bill-hit-20250202-p5l8wu.html

February 3, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Australian nuclear news 27 January to 3 February.

Headlines as they come in:

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Nuclear for Australia” – a CHARITY ? Whaa-at !

“Nuclear for Australia” charity(?!?!) total revenue – $211,832. But no Financial Report was provided, even though the ACNC “encourages them to do so”. Stunts like fishing for three-eyed fish over in the USA and touring Australia with Miss America – makes you wonder what other charities get up to in Australia.

Charity size:

SmallIs the charity an incorporated association?:No

Fundraising online:Yes

Does the Charity intend to fundraise in the next reporting period?:Yes

Charity programs

Nuclear Education

Program classification:

Community informationProgram locations:

  • Brisbane QLD, Australia
  • Australia

Program operated online:YesProgram beneficiaries:

  • General community in Australia

Description of the charity’s activities and outcomes:

Nuclear for Australia established a team of nuclear experts to help educate Australians, ran a national education campaign on nuclear power through paid social media advertising, produced organic social media content and shared information through the traditional media.

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste. AUKUS agency’s reckless indifference

Last Friday, government solicitors acting for the Australian Submarine Agency sent me a warning against publishing some embarrassing information about their conduct.


Neither I (Rex Patrick) nor Michael West Media  will be subject to their bullying, however.

The Australian Submarine Agency deals with high-level Defence secrets and fissile material, yet it has been caught ignoring security obligations while threatening Rex Patrick, who reports on their conduct.

by Rex Patrick | Feb 3, 2025,  https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-agency-reckless-on-nuclear-waste/

Last Friday, government solicitors acting for the Australian Submarine Agency sent me a warning against publishing some embarrassing information about their conduct.


Neither I nor MWM will be subject to their bullying, however.


The Australian Government has undertaken to accept responsibility for the spent nuclear fuel from our planned AUKUS submarines. This is no light undertaking. It’s more than a lifetime obligation; indeed,

it’s an obligation that will last tens of thousands of years.

The Government has announced that this high-level radioactive waste will be stored on Defence land.

As reported in MWM, in February 2023, the Australian Submarine Agency awarded a contract for nearly $400K to former Defence Department Deputy Secretary Steve Grzeskowiak to find a suitable Defence location

The very expensive irony that lurked behind this contract was the fact that Grzeskowiak had, when he was inside Defence, looked for a location on Defence land to store low-level radioactive waste and had been unable to find a suitable site.

According to Grzeskowiak, there wasn’t a single spot anywhere across the vast Defence estate that was suitable for storing low-level radioactive material. Yet he was now the go-to person who would, through some miraculous divination, find the Australian Submarine Agency a location across the very same territory.


Document request

In December 2023, I requested Mr Grzeskowiak’s report under our Freedom of Information laws. I was refused access on the basis the report was a Cabinet document.

But here’s the interesting thing. I knew that the report had been being worked on by multiple agencies, so I requested related documents from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Geoscience Australia (GA), the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).

What those documents showed me was the report was not, at least until after I made my FOI request, developed on the Government’s CabNet+ system.

I’m now in a legal fight at the Administrative Review Tribunal, pressing my case for the report to be made public.


The Cabinet Handbook, the bible for Cabinet’s processes, makes it crystal clear that cabinet documents must be prepared on a special CabNet+ system.

The protective security framework of the Government also commands that Cabinet documents are stored on CabNet+.


Despite this, the Australian Submarine Agency didn’t do that.

Why? I can’t publish their evidence in the proceeding until the matter has been heard in the Tribunal, but what I can say is that it’s a case of reckless indifference to the rules.

It begs the question, will the Australian Submarine Agency also play fast and loose with the rules in relation to our highly classified data or our allies’ highly classified data?

“The Australian Submarine Agency is under a great deal of pressure to “get the job done”.

 There are unquestionably a lot of unrealistic expectations coming down from the top. Will they follow the rules when it comes to nuclear safety, or will they bend and break the rules when they find it expedient to meet a politically driven objective?


Legal arguments

In their legal submissions, the Australian Government asserts: “The fact that the document was not created within the ‘CabNet’ system is not indicative one way or the other as to the intention of the authors.”

Actually, the rules of Cabinet are very strict. A document must meet two tests to qualify as a cabinet document 1) it must have been bought into existence for the dominant purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet, and 2) it must have been submitted to Cabinet.

I am satisfied it meets the second test but not the first.

To meet the first test the Government has to present objective evidence to the Tribunal that a minister so commissioned the document for consideration by Cabinet.

“They have not done so.”

And the fact that the document, in breach of the rules,  just floated around on a government network not authorised to hold Cabinet documents for months on end will work against the Australian Submarine Agency in the end.

Hypocrisy


In response to insistence from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Peter Dutton should disclose the intended location of seven nuclear power stations, the Opposition Leader did so.

But Albanese is refusing to be transparent about the intended location of a high-level radioactive waste dump. His government wants to block public debate for as long as possible and then present people with a fait accompli.

It’s yet to be seen whether the Government will win on its claim that the report I’m after is a Cabinet document. But in the end, if it were determined that the report is that, there would still be nothing to stop Albanese from being true to his past rhetoric about the importance of government transparency and releasing the report to inform public debate.

“Australians have a right to know. The fact that the Prime Minister hasn’t already done this says a lot.”

For me, given that the Government has cautioned me against publishing details that reveal security incompetence inside the Australian Submarine Agency, I’ll wait for the knock on the door from the Federal Police. I’m not going to be intimidated.

There’s a vital democratic principle to be defended – the right to publish embarrassing information about government. The only way to protect that right, especially in the face of Government bullying, is to publish.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | politics, wastes | Leave a comment

 Dutton’s nuclear plan requires ‘huge’ new bureaucracy.

“Every single dollar spent on nuclear will come from the taxpayer. So of course, that will lead to a bureaucracy.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised what he calls Labor’s “big government” approach and “wasteful” spending

 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2025/02/01/exclusive-duttons-nuclear-plan-requires-huge-new-bureaucracy

A “huge” new bureaucracy, numbering thousands of extra public servant positions, would need to be created by the Coalition to establish and support an Australian nuclear power industry, according to the minister for public service, Katy Gallagher.

The proposal for a civil nuclear power program, as described by shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien last year, included “institutional architecture” that he said would entail an expansion of the regulatory agency, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), a new independent nuclear energy coordinating authority and a government business enterprise to be called Affordable Energy Australia.

That architecture raises questions in the midst of the current opposition attacks on the growth and efficiency of the bureaucracy under the Albanese government. The Coalition’s election campaign push to cut government spending, sharpened by the nomination last week of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to lead a proposed efficiency department, has focused so far on paring back the public service.

The Coalition’s coal-to-nuclear strategy appears to defy that objective, as it requires building a large department “from scratch”, Gallagher tells The Saturday Paper. “We haven’t run state energy systems for so long,” the minister says. “It would be up there with departments like, you would think, Services Australia. Probably a bit smaller than the NDIA [National Disability Insurance Agency, Defence. It would be thousands of public servants.”

Gallagher likens the bureaucratic infrastructure for a nuclear power industry, which the Coalition has said would be taxpayer funded, to Labor’s creation of the Climate Change Department of more than 2500 staff. She expects more than that would be needed, including outside Canberra, for the Coalition plan to build its proposed seven nuclear power plants across five states.

“It would be planning, construction, safety, getting the skills. I don’t even know how you’re going to get the skills into that,” Gallagher said. “It’d be a lot of travel because you’re all around the country.”

Last year, O’Brien revealed that, under the Coalition’s plan, a coordinating authority would determine how much nuclear power is produced at each of the seven proposed sites before it enters the national energy mix.

“In terms of exactly how many on any plant, we’ll be leaving that to the independent nuclear energy coordinating authority,” he told the ABC’s Insiders last June. “It is right we want multi-unit sites. That’s how to get costs down.”

The shadow minister was not available for an interview. In response to emailed questions, O’Brien did not address the size of a civil nuclear power bureaucracy or the cost of expanding nuclear agencies and creating new ones, but acknowledged that “a highly skilled nuclear workforce will be paramount to ensuring the success of this plan”.

In his response, O’Brien gave more detail about the nuclear program, including outlines of private and public partnerships and a proposition to include the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), which looks after Australia’s international treaty obligations.

“Experience is not cheap, because you’ll have to get it from overseas … we’ll be having to buy that in, at expense. You don’t just train someone up over a two-year period.”

“The ARPANSA legislation will be amended to allow the licensing and regulation of civilian nuclear facilities, including power stations,” the shadow minister said. “ARPANSA will have its resources increased to prepare to license the establishment projects and advice will be sought regarding the merits of regulatory consolidation of ARPANSA and ASNO.

“The independent Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority will lead community consultation and manage a process to select experienced nuclear companies to partner with Government to deliver these projects.

“Affordable Energy Australia will be financed by the federal government through a combination of debt and equity and, through its partnership arrangements with experienced nuclear companies, will own, develop and operate the establishment projects.”

A former energy adviser to Britain’s Thatcher government says the Coalition is trivialising the bureaucratic support needed for a local nuclear power industry.

Greg Bourne, who is a former president of BP Australasia and is a councillor on the Climate Council, said the experience in the UK showed that the nuclear part of the electricity industry had to be regulated, as “no one commercially wanted it”.

He says established nuclear power countries in comparable democracies such as the United States have very large regulatory organisations rigorously covering issues such as skills, construction, safety, finance and radioactive waste.

“What you would need to do – almost certainly getting the people from overseas, building ARPANSA’s strength – it’s not a trivial act,” Bourne tells The Saturday Paper.

“They will have to build a complete set of public servants, for want of a better word, to be able to advise Department of Energy … on what can be done, what can’t be done, the pace at which it can be done and so on.”

The scale of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal, Bourne says, is obviously a far cry from Australia’s experience with its sole reactor, the 20-megawatt nuclear medical reactor at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.

“We will have to buy experience. And buying experience is not cheap, because you’ll have to get it from overseas,” he says. “People will be coming in with different models. European models… a number of United States, Canadian models. They’ll all be coming in with different things, but we’ll be having to buy that in, at expense,” he says. “You don’t just train someone up over a two-year period.

“Lucas Heights is a very, very different thing. The people there are good. They understand what they’re doing. I do not think that [the Coalition] will be able to grab the head of the nuclear agency from Lucas Heights, and then that person will have credibility with two gigawatt-size reactors.”

The public service minister suggests that if the nuclear bureaucracy were to be added to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), not only would the department need to be “a lot larger” but there would likely be “a huge consultant bill”, over decades. “You’d be paying for all of that before anything gets happening.”

The Albanese government, meanwhile, is moving to accelerate household electrification efforts, through a deal with the Senate crossbench to support Labor’s Future Made in Australia legislation. The government aims for 82 per cent of power to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030 – a plan the Coalition has derided as “unrealistic”.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen revealed this week he used ministerial powers at the end of last year to direct the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to consider funding solar panels and home batteries. However, the basis of Labor’s transition plan, Bowen says, is private-sector funded.

“Every single dollar spent on nuclear will come from the taxpayer. So of course, that will lead to a bureaucracy. Our plan is based on private-sector investment. Theirs is based on public investment and a bureaucracy,” the minister tells The Saturday Paper.

He points to the lack of detail in the Coalition’s planning, in contrast with its demands for more detail in the lead-up to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote: “They campaigned against an alleged government bureaucracy in the referendum, and they’re proposing at least two new government organisations.”

The Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations is backed by a contested set of costings, prepared by Frontier Economics and released late last year, amounting to roughly $300 billion spread over 50 years. The modelling suggests the Coalition plan is $263 billion cheaper than Labor’s renewables proposal, but a wide range of economists have countered that the costings lack crucial information about how the figures were calculated, and are based on a scenario of dramatically lower energy use than is realistic.

The delays in getting the reactors on line have also drawn strong criticism. The opposition insists its plan, under the best-case scenario, would begin producing electricity by 2035, but this is five years earlier than the earliest estimate by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and assembling the necessary regulation and skills is a key component of that timeline.

The Coalition’s energy spokesman says the opposition’s civil nuclear policy is well formed and ready to start.

“[T]his policy follows the most comprehensive study ever undertaken by an Opposition, learning from experts in 10 nations about their decarbonisation policies while keeping prices down, the lights on and ensuring energy security,” O’Brien said in his statement.

“Upon entering government, the Coalition will be ready to implement a detailed energy policy immediately, informed by global best practices and established relationships.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised what he calls Labor’s “big government” approach and “wasteful” spending that he says has exacerbated inflation in the lead-up to an election that will be heavily focused on the cost of living.

His most cited example is the 36,000 additional Average Staffing Level places in the public service funded by Labor over three budgets.

The opposition leader now has four frontbenchers whose portfolios cover the public service, two of whom are solely tasked with zeroing in on waste and efficiency: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and James Stevens.

While Dutton isn’t explicitly referencing as its inspiration the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency in the US, he’s elevating the mission within his ranks just as the Trump administration takes over. Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, has long urged the Coalition to emulate the MAGA policy agenda.

“Our argument is to bring that role, that function, into [the Department of the] Prime Minister and Cabinet as a key central agency, and then to have the authority of Prime Minister and Cabinet to run the operation of senior efficiencies achieved across every department of the Commonwealth,” the Coalition leader told reporters in Perth on Tuesday.

“And that’s something that we would take very seriously.”

Dutton says Labor’s spending on public service positions is a question of “priorities”. Speaking to reporters in his electorate of Dickson last weekend, the opposition leader said, “That’s money that we could be spending elsewhere to provide support to people during Labor’s cost-of-living crisis, or into defence or into security and into priorities for Australians otherwise.

“I just don’t think any Australian can say that their lives are simpler or better off today because of the tens of thousands of additional public servants that the prime minister’s employed in Canberra.”

The plans for cuts have been flagged for at least six months.

“The first thing we’ll do is sack those 36,000 public servants in Canberra, that’s $24 billion worth,” Nationals leader David Littleproud told commercial radio station Triple M in August.

The figure for additional public servants equates to 20 per cent of the workforce, a boost that entailed rebuilding positions lost to more expensive outsourced labour. The cost cited by the opposition is over four years.

An audit, ordered by the Albanese government soon after the 2022 election, found that the Coalition government in the 2021-22 financial year alone spent $20.8 billion on almost 54,000 contractors and external providers. The bulk of the external labour was employed in the defence, social services and agriculture portfolios.

The 36,000 figure under the Albanese government, confirmed in federal budget papers, also covers Labor’s moves to rein in Centrelink and other government call centre waiting times, as well as additional staffing to reduce chronic backlogs in claims and visa processing times.

Gallagher, who is also finance minister, accepts that efficiencies remain to be made within government. She adds that $92 billion was saved over the past three Labor budgets and mid-year updates.

“We’ve had over $4 billion saved from not using consultants as much as the former government did,” the senator says.

She says there is an ongoing effort in explaining the worth and work of the public service.

“It’s always up to us to explain what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, but I would say to Peter Dutton, go and speak to a veteran who actually is getting their pension now, who’s getting their appropriate payment. There was a 40-month wait for people to get their pension,” she told reporters last week. “What he wants to pretend is that you don’t need anyone to do these jobs. Two thirds of these jobs are in the regions. They’re in every part of Australia.”

February 2, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Dangerous climate radical, Lloyds of London, threatens the world economy

Dangerous climate radical, Lloyd’s of London, appears to be threatening the world economy

Look – the world authorities have got everything in hand. There should be no need to worry about that global heating nonsense. We learned at Climate Summits Cop 28 and Cop 29 that our shares in oil, gas, coal are going to continue OK. And now, the world’s leader, the USA is going  to again withdraw from the landmark Paris climate agreement, so we can forget all that silly reductions emissions nonsense. And no more of our money to be grabbed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Gee, America has just been saved from a “national energy emergency,” by President Trump’s foresight, with an executive order with its promise to “drill, baby, drill.” Saved in several other ways, such as removing incentives for electric cars.

Phew ! What a relief – as things can now go back to normal. We’ve really had the wool pulled over our eyes, by silly organisations like the UK Met Office, NASA. Copernicus in Europe, Berkeley Earth, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Center, the World Meteorological Organization, and The China Meteorological Administration.

All of these smartaleck bodies have very recently reported on climate change and its effects. The latest nonsense is in the January 15th Report from The World Economic Forum. Listing the top global risks, No.2 is Extreme weather events.

Now what would those elitists know – compared to the common-sense wisdom of a Donald Trump, a J.D. Vance, or a Peter Dutton? We don’t need to worry about all that complicated doom and gloom from academic old fogeys.

But one thing that bothers me is treachery. I’m talking about highly respected companies – in this case Lloyd’s of London, which apparently, in 2019 refused to reinsure some Canadian insurance companies. It is hard to find detail on this, but it was due to Canada’s succession of climate disasters – hurricanes,  floods, wildfires, and extreme heat. Lloyds is the biggest global reinsurer, so could be said to have started, or at least accelerated a trend. In California from 2015-2019, insurers refused 350,000 policy renewals, because of the devastating wildfires. This trend is spreading to the reinsurance of insurance companies in other countries, including Australia.

Reinsurance companies nowadays adopt what is quaintly called “robust”underwriting decisions . In the most recent years, they’re assessing not only huge climate disasters, but also recognising smaller climate perils, like  wind, hail or water damage. For areas at risk, they’re requiring preventative measures, insurance companies must charge more for homes in flood plains, wildfire-prone zones, or coastal areas at risk of hurricanes. So, insurance companies must comply, as they themselves need to be insured. Up go the premiums – for everybody – and especially those in the climate danger zones. . The current Los Angeles fires just add to the developing crisis in insurance. Insurance for many becomes unaffordable, –  “It’s called the hardening of the market.”, and this flows on to mortgage costs. banks and stranded assets- threatening  the overall financial sector.”

All this trauma is the result of Lloyds and others foolishly using the figures from The World Economic Forum, and those other bodies, and not paying proper attention to those who know the truth – of the non-existence or non-importance of global heating, top people – Donald Trump, JD Vance and Peter Dutton.

Climate researcher Paul Beckwith has set out the absurd climate claims: –

The World Economic Forum report preceding the Davos conference looks at global risks – with input from business leaders CEOs, scientists, and a wide range of academics- planetary risks over the next year or 2 and 5 years out. and 10 years out. The top risks by far are climate change risks, abrupt tipping points, extreme weather events – In 5 years more prevalent in 10 years they”ll dominate.

banks are in trouble too. In that chain of events, the stock bubble could blow up. Should we expect the unexpected: 2025 as the year of climate blow-back into the economy?

Climate scientists in America are thinking twice about whether to talk publicly about climate change. The Trump team has already demanded control over the next U.S. National climate assessment, due out in 2026 or 27. It is possible that the same concern about losing their jobs could affect Australian scientists, if Peter Dutton should win Australia’s federal election , due in a few months.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Former US beauty queen and nuclear energy expert Grace Stanke promotes nuclear in WA

“The perception from a lot of the community is they were using beauty to brainwash.”

By Kate Forrester, ABC South West WA

In short:

A campaign by proponents of nuclear have funded former Miss America and engineer Grace Stanke’s pro-nuclear tour of Australia. 

Attendees say they had mixed emotions to whether or not the campaign message was what locals needed to hear. 

What’s Next? 

The tour, funded by Australian electronics mogul, Dick Smith will see the 22-year-old visit locations around Australia over the next week, to advocate for a nuclear future.

Nuclear energy advocates have begun a national tour to win the hearts and minds of coal towns promised nuclear facilities by the opposition.

Last year, federal opposition leader Peter Dutton identified seven sites across the nation to transition coal-fired power stations into nuclear power plants. 

The South West town of Collie, 200 kilometres south of Perth, is one of seven sites identified by Mr Dutton. 

Collie was the first stop on the campaign, spearheaded by former Miss America and nuclear fuels engineer Grace Stanke…………………………………..

One of the points the American presented to the crowd was jobs being transferable.

“I think for this town specifically, a lot of the skills current coal workers have can translate into a nuclear power plant or multiple power plants,” she said.

Differing opinions 

Greg Busson, Secretary of the Mining and Energy Union, went to the meeting on Thursday night.

He disagreed with Ms Stanke’s position on jobs being transferable from coal to nuclear but said hearing another perspective was always worth it. ….majority of the workers I cover in Collie are coal miners. I don’t see where the link is there. They’ve never worked in a powerhouse.

“We don’t mine uranium, so where do those people fit in? What other industries are there that are linked to the nuclear industry that will give those coal workers comfort?”

Mr Busson said, looking around the hall, he thought a lot of the attendees had come from out of town. 

“I think part of the problem is they portrayed Grace as a beauty queen, not just as a nuclear engineer,” Mr Busson said. 

“The perception from a lot of the community is they were using beauty to brainwash.”…………………………………..more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/former-beauty-queen-grace-stanke-promotes-nuclear-in-wa-/104881056

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Western Australia | Leave a comment

Exploring Nuclear Energy Part 3: What Will Nuclear Power Mean for Australians?

The Coalition’s nuclear plan aims to reshape Australia’s energy future, but high costs, long construction times, and environmental concerns make its viability uncertain. Will nuclear power deliver stability or long-term challenges?

Nicole S, January 31, 2025

What is the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power?

The Australian Coalition, led by opposition leader Peter Dutton, has proposed integrating nuclear energy into Australia’s power grid. Their strategy involves repurposing existing coal power plant sites to house nuclear reactors, aiming for long-term energy security and emissions reduction.

Key features of the plan:

  • Number of plants: Seven nuclear power plants are planned at current coal-fired power station sites.
  • Locations: Expected to be in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia.
  • Timeline: The first plants are expected to be operational before 2040.
  • Estimated cost: $331 billion for construction and infrastructure development.
  • Comparative costs: Coalition claims its nuclear plan will be 44% cheaper than Labor’s renewable transition, which they estimate at $591 billion.
  • Primary goal: Provide a stable, baseload power supply with lower emissions compared to fossil fuels.
  • Job creation: Expected to generate thousands of jobs in engineering, construction, and nuclear facility operations.

Potential challenges and criticisms:

  • High initial costs: Nuclear projects require large capital investment and can experience cost overruns.
  • Long construction periods: With the first plants not operational until at least 2040, Australia will continue relying on fossil fuels for decades.
  • Carbon emissions during transition: Reports estimate 1.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions could be released between 2025 and 2051 due to prolonged coal and gas use before nuclear is fully integrated.
  • Waste disposal: Australia currently lacks a high-level nuclear waste management facility.
  • Public opposition: Surveys indicate strong resistance to nuclear power in some regions, particularly over safety and waste concerns.

The Coalition argues that nuclear energy is essential for Australia’s energy security and emissions reduction, but critics question whether the high costs and long timelines make it a viable alternative to renewables. According to their modelling, the plan would cost approximately $331 billion. 

However, these estimates have been met with scepticism. Critics argue that the Coalition’s assumptions are overly optimistic, particularly regarding the projected costs of nuclear energy. For instance, the Coalition assumes nuclear energy can be supplied at $30 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while the CSIRO estimates a more realistic cost between $145 and $238 per MWh. 

Additionally, the Climate Council has conducted independent analyses that suggest the Coalition’s nuclear plan could lead to at least $308 billion in climate pollution costs between 2025 and 2050 due to the prolonged reliance on fossil fuels during the transition period. 

Therefore, while the Coalition has provided its own cost projections, these figures are subject to debate, with various organisations offering alternative estimates that highlight potential underestimations in the Coalition’s modelling.

Economic impact

If the Coalition wins the election and implements its nuclear energy plan, the economic impact on Australia will be substantial. The Coalition has proposed investing $331 billion to establish a domestic nuclear power industry over the next few decades. This includes constructing seven nuclear power plants by 2050 to replace aging coal-fired stations and ensure long-term energy security. Proponents argue that nuclear energy could stabilise electricity prices, create thousands of long-term jobs, and help Australia transition away from fossil fuels. However, critics warn that nuclear projects have significant upfront costs, long construction times, and potential cost overruns, which could place a financial burden on taxpayers.

Despite potential economic benefits, concerns remain about the feasibility and overall costs of nuclear power in Australia. A report by the Climate Council suggests that the Coalition’s nuclear plan could cost up to $490 billion more than expected and result in one billion additional tonnes of CO₂ emissions compared to alternative renewable energy strategies. Unlike solar and wind projects, which can be deployed quickly, nuclear plants take decades to become operational, delaying their economic benefits. Additionally, Australia would need to develop a regulatory framework for nuclear energy, including safety measures and waste disposal infrastructure, which could further increase costs. This has led to strong debates about whether nuclear energy is a viable economic option for the country.

With the information we have, let’s examine the predictions for Australia’s economy over the next 50 years.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why nuclear energy is not worth the risk for Australia

By Climate Council, anuary 28, 2025

Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberal-National Coalition have said that, if they win the next Federal Election, they would attempt to build nuclear reactors in communities around Australia to produce electricity.

Here’s what you need to know about this risky energy scheme:

Why nuclear reactors are too risky for Australia

1. Nuclear reactors risk our energy security – by failing to replace retiring coal

Coal-fired power stations still supply about half of the electricity in Australia’s main national grid – but they are outdated, unreliable, polluting and expected to close down by 2038 at the latest. That’s before a single watt of nuclear energy could enter our energy system, given nuclear reactors would take at least 15 years to get up and running in Australia, according to the CSIRO.

The majority of our coal capacity is over 40 years old, and the ability of our generators to reliably produce electricity has dropped off dramatically. Coal outages are already a primary driver of power outage warnings. We need to bring on new sources of energy right now – like solar and wind, backed by big batteries – before the lights go out and our kids’ future goes up in smoke.

2. Going nuclear means Aussies pay more, for less 

Australia’s independent science agency, CSIRO, has found that building solar and wind power backed by storage is the lowest-cost way to meet our electricity needs. Unlike renewables, the cost of building and operating nuclear energy in Australia remains prohibitively high.

In December 2024, the Federal Coalition released its nuclear costings. Unfortunately, as expected, these costing contain a number of misleading assumptions and omissions. Their scheme doesn’t provide enough electricity to meet our needs, underestimates the cost of building and operating nuclear reactors compared to similar nations overseas, and ignores the eyewatering costs of more climate pollution and worsening unnatural disasters. Our analysis found that the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost up to $490 billion more than they’ve estimated and add one billion tonnes more climate pollution from burning more coal and gas while waiting for nuclear reactors.

Why should Australians pay more for less?

3. Nuclear reactor projects often face big cost and timeline blowouts

Around the world, building nuclear reactors are notorious for running overtime and over-budget. For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear energy facility is costing three times more than promised ($90 billion) and running 14 years late (2031 vs 2017). 

In the US, NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor in Idaho was expected to cost US$3.6 billion and produce 720 megawatts of electricity. Just three years later, the project cost had blown out to US$9.3 billion while capacity had reduced to 496 megawatts, and the project was ultimately cancelled in 2023.

Importantly, both of these projects were in nations with more than 60 years of experience building nuclear energy, whereas Australia has none.

4. Nuclear reactors pose significant community, environmental and health risks

Radiation from major nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, have impacted hundreds of thousands of people and contaminated vast areas that take decades to clean up.

While rare, the risk of such disasters in Australia can’t be ruled out, and many of the proposed nuclear sites are already in disaster-prone regions experiencing escalating heatwaves, bushfires, storms and floods – which only exacerbates the risk. Even when a nuclear reactor operates as intended, it creates an expensive long-term legacy of site remediation, fuel processing and radioactive waste storage.

Why should Australians – especially those living in the regional communities which would host reactors – accept these risks when we don’t need to?

5. Nuclear reactors would require massive amounts of water in increasingly drought-prone regions

Nuclear reactors need a lot of water for cooling. For example, a typical 1600 MW nuclear facility uses about 2,000 litres of water per second, equivalent to the annual water use of four households. In a changing climate, with increased risk of droughts in Australia, the significant amounts of water used by nuclear reactors is a significant concern. 

At times when water supply is tight, it’s also unclear how the needs of nuclear reactors will be balanced against those of households and farmers. Other countries with nuclear reactors will soon be facing these challenges: 61% of the USA’s nuclear energy facility are expected to face water stress by 2030, potentially forcing them to reduce their generation or even shut down.

In Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, nuclear’s water use is a big concern for many communities. 

6. Climate change threatens our kids’ safety, and we need to be cutting climate pollution now

Climate pollution from burning coal, oil and gas for electricity is overheating our planet and harming our communities right now. Every action taken today to tackle dangerous climate change helps secure a safer future for our kids.

But the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution.  In fact, the Coalition’s own modelling shows that the scheme would produce one billion tonnes more climate pollution by 2050. Incredibly, that’s equivalent to the climate pollution released by running the Eraring coal power station for another 85 years.

Why take that risk when we already have a plan to  keep rolling out clean, safe, and abundant renewable power?

Here’s the bottom line: nuclear energy risks our energy security, our economy, the safety of our communities and our kids’ future. It makes no sense for Australia. On the other hand, power from the sun and wind is cheap, abundant, safe and available now. So why risk nuclear – especially when there’s so much we still don’t know?

What we know about the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme and proposed locations:

The Federal Coalition has proposed building seven nuclear reactors at the sites of existing or former coal-fired power stations.

Check out the proposed location of each site on Google Maps:

What we still don’t know about the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme

The Federal Coalition’s energy scheme was first announced back in June 2024, but there are still more questions than answers, including:

  • How much will power prices increase to pay for nuclear reactors, as one of the most expensive forms of energy?
  • How would the Federal Government overturn State Government bans on nuclear activity? 
  • How will the safety of communities living and working near the facilities be protected, especially as climate change increases the frequency and severity of unnatural disasters?
  • How will water be shared between nuclear reactors, farmers and communities during droughts?
  • Where and how will nuclear waste be stored? How much will that cost, and who will pay?

Renewables are safe, clean and successfully cutting climate pollution in our electricity grid right now

Already, about 40% of Australia’s electricity comes from solar, wind and hydropower. More than 4 million Australian households have put solar panels on their roof, and together they are saving $3 billion a year on electricity bills.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) tells us that large-scale solar and wind, backed up by storage (massive batteries and pumped hydro), can provide power 24/7. We can keep accelerating this progress to build a clean grid that’s powered by renewables within the next 10 years.

So why risk going nuclear?

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s high-risk earthquake zones identified

9 News, By Richard Wood • Senior Journalist Jan 31, 2025

In a update on Australia’s high-risk earthquake zones, one of the two areas includes Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, flagged as the site of a potential nuclear reactor by the Coalition.

Geoscience Australia this month released its National Seismic Hazard Assessment, which pinpointed the Latrobe Valley and Darwin as the two places in the country with a “higher risk of strong ground shaking”.

The new assessment – the first in five years – was based on new data and information from people who have felt an earthquake.

In a update on Australia’s high-risk earthquake zones, one of the two areas includes Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, flagged as the site of a potential nuclear reactor by the Coalition.

Geoscience Australia this month released its National Seismic Hazard Assessment, which pinpointed the Latrobe Valley and Darwin as the two places in the country with a “higher risk of strong ground shaking”.

The new assessment – the first in five years – was based on new data and information from people who have felt an earthquake……………………………………………………

Allen says data from recent seismic activity in Victoria and the Banda Sea, north of Darwin, had been analysed by Geoscience Australia.

“The recent earthquake activity in Victoria’s high country tells us a lot about the potential risk for future earthquakes in the region,” he said.

“We now know the level of risk in Darwin is higher than previously understood, because we have a much better understanding of how earthquakes in the Banda Sea – which are felt quite strongly in the area – affect the hazard.”

One of the seven sites across Australia earmarked to house nuclear power stations if the Coalition wins power at this year’s election, includes the Loy Yang Power Station – a coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley………………………………………………………………..

The policy announced by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton last year has left many local residents concerned.

They and anti-nuclear campaigners point to the impact from the 2021 Woods Point earthquake, about 180km north-east of Melbourne.

The 5.9 magnitude quake was the largest in Victoria and damaged buildings in the epicentre of Mansfield………………………  https://www.9news.com.au/national/latrobe-valley-and-darwin-high-risk-earthquake-zones/6f660af3-00d8-4b6f-9d58-8198df9204c6

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Briefing paper from UK trip shows nuclear waste discussions held, as location for AUKUS submarine waste remains undecided

ABC News, Stateline, Leah MacLennan, 31 Jan 25

In short:

Former senator Rex Patrick says documents show SA’s Defence Industries Minister met with a defence company in the UK for the “specific purpose of being briefed” on the dismantling of nuclear reactors and the waste associated.

Mr Mullighan says those topics were not the “focus” of the discussions.

What’s next? 

Legislation passed last year allowing nuclear waste to be stored at Osborne, but the government says a location for any high-level waste storage is still to be decided.

A former senator has sounded the alarm over documents he says point to government discussions about the defueling and dismantling of nuclear submarines at South Australia’s Osborne shipyards.

Rex Patrick was a Navy submariner, entered the Senate as a replacement for Nick Xenophon, and is now running for the Senate again as a Jacqui Lambie Network candidate.

He has obtained documents through freedom of information (FOI) that show South Australia’s Treasurer and Defence Industries Minister Stephen Mullighan met with defence company Babcock during a visit to the United Kingdom late last year.

“What the FOI shows is that the Treasurer Mr Mullighan met with Babcock for the specific purpose of being briefed on the dismantling of nuclear reactors and waste associated with those nuclear reactors,” Mr Patrick said.

The documents include a briefing paper for the meeting, which said the objective of the visit was to “discuss Babcock’s approach to nuclear powered submarine sustainment, defueling and disposal … seek information on Babcock’s experience in radioactive waste management/nuclear decommissioning,” and “discuss Babcock’s approach to nuclear powered submarine social license”.

Mr Patrick said the documents show the government was exploring the idea of dismantling the submarines’ nuclear reactors at Osborne.

He has called for more transparency and discussion with the public about what is being planned for the site under the AUKUS agreement.

“I’ve been looking at AUKUS and issues of nuclear waste for about three years and what I’ve found is that you really have to pull teeth to get access to information about this sort of stuff,” Mr Patrick said.

“Any decisions being made about this are not decisions that just affect this term of government or the next, they are decisions that will affect South Australians for tens of thousands of years.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Decommissioning still decades away

Australia’s first nuclear submarine will not arrive until the early 2030s, when the US plans to sell the government three Virginia Class boats.

The Virginia Class have a life span of more than 30 years, meaning their defueling and decommissioning is still decades away.

Rex Patrick argues that does not mean decisions can be delayed, because signing up to AUKUS is also signing up to a nuclear industry and dealing with the waste they will ultimately produce.

“Decisions around high-level nuclear waste are decisions that last for generations upon generations,” Mr Patrick said.

“They are not decisions that should simply be made and presented as a fait accompli by a government.”……………………………………………………………………..

Federal laws mean nuclear waste can be stored at Osborne

In October last year, legislation passed federal parliament that will allow for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste at Osborne.

The law does not define what level of waste can be stored there, but the federal government has given assurances that it will only be low-level waste.

Those assurances are not enough to allay concerns from the local community group that has branded itself ‘Port Adelaide Community Opposing Aukus’.

“One of our major concerns is that waste will be literally transported down Victoria Road, which alongside of it is a residential area,” group member Eileen Darley said.

“We’re going to be a docking point, or a gateway if you like, to some as yet unknown permanent nuclear dump somewhere.”………………………………………………

Major delays to UK decommissioning

The United Kingdom has had a fleet of nuclear submarines since the 1960s, but has faced multiple challenges decommissioning and disposing of boats that are out of service.

More than 20 decommissioned submarines are awaiting disposal at dockyards in Scotland and England, with half still waiting to be defueled.

The oldest, HMS Swiftsure, left service in 1992 and Babcock is now working with authorities to dismantle it, with an aim to be finished by the end of next year.

Overall it is a program that will cost billions of pounds.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/documents-show-nuclear-waste-discussions-aukus-submarines/104874852

January 31, 2025 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

Is the world going nuclear? The hope and hype of nuclear as a climate solution.

“The industry is having some very good rhetoric, but it’s having a very poor reality. We’ve seen 30 countries say that they will triple nuclear (power) by 2050; we’ve seen 125 say they will triple renewables by 2045.”

By political reporter Tom Lowrey, 26 Jan 25

In short: 

Momentum behind nuclear power as a part of the global solution to climate change has been growing, with the technology gaining more attention and interest.

But climate advocates point out that nuclear still has a poor reputation for being delivered late and hugely over budget.

What’s next?

The Coalition will continue to point to any international shifts towards nuclear power, to make its case for Australia’s adoption of the technology.

It’s been a difficult few decades for nuclear power. 

Nuclear’s share as part of the global energy mix has been falling, and incidents like the Fukushima disaster in 2011 highlighted for many the risks of the technology.

Some countries started mothballing or shutting down plants, and many new projects were plagued by cost blowouts and delays.

But in the past few years there has been a remarkable turnaround.

Countries are pledging to help triple the production of nuclear power globally, and industry advocates are a growing presence at global climate summits.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body that advocates for peaceful use of nuclear technology, is forecasting substantial growth in the sector over coming decades.

And Australia is about to head into a federal election with the adoption of nuclear power at the centre of the political contest.

The Coalition argues Australia risks being left behind if it doesn’t get on board.

But others point out that while there is plenty of global interest in nuclear — and the as-yet unrealised promise of new technology such as small modular reactors — there is a lot more real money flowing into renewables, which are already transforming global energy grids.

Nuclear’s big global arrival

The COP29 climate summit held in Baku, Azerbaijan late last year was ostensibly dedicated to climate financing — that is, finding the money needed to fund a massive global effort to tackle climate change.

But it made headlines for a few different reasons.

One was that for the second year running, the global climate summit was being held in a country that derives most of its wealth from oil and gas. (Last year’s summit was held in the UAE).

Another was the growing presence of nuclear power.

Six more countries signed a pledge to triple nuclear’s global production by 2050, taking the total number of countries on board to 31.

They range from relatively small countries such as Moldova, through to major Australian allies like Canada, Japan, the UK and US.

All four of those larger countries have long-established nuclear industries.

Nuclear attracted plenty of attention, including headlines labelling it a “rising star” at the climate summit.

And there was an Australian presence in Baku ready to cheer it on.

Nationals MP David Gillespie, the retiring member for the NSW North Coast seat of Lyne, travelled to the summit (with some support from Coalition-aligned environment group Coalition for Conservation).

David Gillespie has been one of nuclear power’s longest and loudest supporters, chairing the “parliamentary friends of nuclear industries”.

He acknowledges that a “big slice” of the climate summit was devoted to renewable energy, and a lot of money and ambition is flowing into solar and wind.

But he said the shift in thinking on nuclear power at a global scale was clear to see………………………………..

But other Australians at the November conference say it is important not to overstate nuclear’s presence, and its place in the global net-zero effort.

Tennant Reed is the Director of Climate Change and Energy at the Ai Group, and is a veteran of COP climate summits.

He said the arrival of nuclear energy on the climate scene had certainly been noticeable……………..

He made the point that growth in nuclear power wasn’t a feature of the main negotiations at Baku, but nor was scaling up any other particular energy source.

Mr Reed said nuclear advocates were hosting events on the sidelines — and they were sensitive to one criticism in particular

“They’re all conscious — they have to show that they can deliver new projects ‘on time and on budget’,” he said.

“I must have heard that phrase 50 times from nuclear people………………………………

 Mr Reed said much of the growth in nuclear power was coming from countries with established industries, and while others were expressing interest in setting up an industry, few had recently broken ground.

He said there was a much more obvious momentum in the roll-out of renewables.

“Wind and solar deployment, and especially solar at the moment, is taking off like a rocket,” he said………….Conservationists cast doubt

Some conservation groups have sought to push back on the rising prominence of nuclear power, seeing it as a threatening distraction in efforts to combat climate change.

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney was also at the COP29 conference in Baku, and cast some doubt on nuclear’s future, at least compared to renewables.

“It’s one thing to have agreements and aspirations, it’s another to have projects and power,” he said.

“The industry is having some very good rhetoric, but it’s having a very poor reality. We’ve seen 30 countries say that they will triple nuclear (power) by 2050; we’ve seen 125 say they will triple renewables by 2045.”

And he argues part of the nuclear industry’s ambition is attracting public funding, in an effort to “de-risk” its projects.

“At meeting after meeting, they’ve spoken about the need for market reforms to de-risk nuclear projects,” he said.

“I think that is very bold code for ‘no-one wants to fund us, so we’re looking for the public purse’.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-26/is-the-world-going-nuclear-hope-or-hype/104856852

January 31, 2025 Posted by | climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Brian Goodall slams MP over Rosyth Dockyard nuclear submarines move

“As if it’s not bad enough that there are seven of these environmental time bombs already here, some of which have now been here for decades.“

By Ally McRoberts, Dunfermline Press 25th Jan 2025

A ROSYTH SNP councillor said he was “totally outraged” at the prospect of more nuclear submarines being brought to the dockyard for dismantling.

Brian Goodall said the “environmental time bombs” should be nowhere near the town and hit out at Labour MP Graeme Downie for pushing for more of the work to be done here.

One old Royal Navy sub, HMS Swiftsure, is being cut up and the radioactive waste removed as part of an innovative recycling scheme and there are six more vessels laid up at Rosyth, and another 16 at Devonport in Plymouth.

Mr Downie – who dismissed the criticism as “scaremongering” – wants the Ministry of Defence to put up the money to deal with all of the decommissioned boats and said it would “guarantee decades of work” and bring hundreds of jobs to the dockyard.

But Cllr Goodall hopes to sink that plan and said: “I’ve been totally outraged to see that our area’s Labour MP has called for even more nuclear submarines to be dumped and broken up in Rosyth.

“Labour’s MP for Dunfermline and Dollar has asked the MoD to bring all of the UK’s decommissioned nuclear submarines to Rosyth Dockyard.

“As if it’s not bad enough that there are seven of these environmental time bombs already here, some of which have now been here for decades.”

One of the seven at the yard, HMS Dreadnought has been laid up so long – since 1980 – that much of her low-level radiation has “disappeared naturally”.

As well as dealing with the 23 vessels at Rosyth and Devonport, three more are due to come out of service.

Cllr Goodall continued: “His call runs contrary to Fife Council’s long-standing commitment as a leading nuclear free local authority and I also fear the major impact on Rosyth Dockyard’s contribution to Scotland’s green transition, and the jobs that come with that, if this change of policy was secured, and the dockyard couldn’t become de-regulated as a nuclear site in the medium term.

“Rosyth is simply not the right place for the MoD, or anyone else, to be storing radioactive materials.

“There are homes, shops and businesses within metres of the dockyard.

“There’s a Fife College campus within the dockyard and our brand-new high school is being built within a few hundred metres of the site.”………………………..

Cllr Goodall said: “The compromise that could see the submarines that are already here, dismantled at the dockyard with all radioactive substances being removed to more suitable interim storage facilities down south, is one that I can, reluctantly, agree with, but any suggestion of additional nuclear submarines being brought to Rosyth is an outrage, and would be a breach of promise from the MoD.”……………………… https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/24883349.brian-goodall-slams-mp-rosyth-dockyard-subs-move/

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Media coverage of Dutton’s nuclear ‘plan’: Scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.

By Victoria Fielding | 28 January 2025,  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/media-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-plan-scrutiny-stenography-or-propaganda,19

Unsurprisingly, the conservative media has failed to scrutinise Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, once again displaying bias towards the Coalition, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.

WHEN OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton snuck his dodgy nuclear energy “plan” out just before Christmas, it was an important moment for Australian news media to demonstrate the quality of journalism they produce: scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.

It was also their opportunity to be honest with the public about why Dutton is backing nuclear power, an opportunity they unsurprisingly did not take.

I analysed 37 news reports published by the ABC, The Guardian, News Corp and Nine newspapers on 13 December 2024, the day Dutton released his long-awaited “plan” for nuclear power. I categorised each article as either scrutinising the plan (a useful form of journalism that critically assesses the viability of the nuclear policy), as stenography (just repeating Dutton’s plan without scrutiny), or as propaganda (news presented to look like news but what is actually a form of political advocacy, aiming to persuade readers to support Dutton’s nuclear plan).

Here are the results.

In what will not be surprising to anyone, propagandistic content made up the majority of News Corp’s 20 articles about Dutton’s nuclear plan, with 14 out of 20 enthusiastically supporting nuclear power as a viable energy solution for Australia.

One notable example of this propagandistic approach by News Corp was in The Australian’s editorial on the subject which clearly gave away the views of the masthead.

‘…the Opposition Leader has taken an important and brave step, setting out the economics of the issue in a context relevant to concerns about living costs, especially power bills… Frontier’s modelling shows that the Coalition’s plan, incorporating nuclear and renewables, would cost $331 billion across 25 years, 44 per cent less than Labor’s renewables approach.’

Just like much of News Corp’s propagandistic content advocating for right-wing policies and politicians, the implied suggestion that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is manipulatively deceiving.

According to Climate Council reports using CSIRO’s analysis:

‘…the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind. So that’s at least twice as much for nuclear, or up to ten times as much when comparing with the lowest-cost solar.’

Dutton and his News Corp collaborators never let facts get in the way of manipulating voters.

Next, we have stenography. Stenography is the laziest form of journalism. Rather than doing the difficult work of analysis and being a watchdog to ensure only credible information is relayed to voters, stenographers just repeat what a politician has said, uncritically.

This has the effect of allowing manipulative politicians like Dutton to put information in the public domain which is false and/or misleading. Stenography is actually the opposite of what of journalism is meant to be.  

Nine’s newspapers published six articles which just lazily repeated Dutton’s nonsensical nuclear plan, giving it undue credibility and failing to adequately scrutinise it.

For example, Phillip Coorey in the Australian Financial Review authored a piece originally titled ‘New costings signal war over energy’, which starts with the sentence:

‘The Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost up to $263 billion less than Labor’s renewable rollout between now and 2050, translating into cheaper electricity over the long run, its long-awaited economic modelling purports.’

Coorey would no doubt claim that he is not responsible for any manipulative or misleading content he has included in his article, because he is just reporting what Dutton said. But that is exactly the problem with stenography. Although it is not as bad as News Corp’s overt propagandist style, it still gives Dutton a platform to mislead the newspaper’s audience.

The only useful form of journalism out of the three categories is scrutiny. Indeed, the whole point of political journalism is to scrutinise politicians and policies to ensure voters are not misled and have useful information in which to make an informed decision when voting. All four outlets included at least some articles with extensive scrutiny of Dutton’s nuclear plan. News Corp had five and Nine published three.

The ABC (four articles) and The Guardian (three) were the only two outlets to only present Dutton’s nuclear policy alongside critical analysis.

One shining example of scrutiny from The Guardian’s Graham Readfearn and Josh Butler’s explainer, titled ‘The glaring gaps and unanswered questions in the Coalition’s nuclear plan and costings’, methodically lays out the facts and problems with Dutton’s plans — including the true higher cost comparison with renewables and the huge amount of time it would take nuclear to come online.

The ABC and The Guardian’s useful critique of Dutton’s plan is exactly the information that voters need to accurately appraise whether Dutton’s nuclear policy is beneficial to them and their community. No doubt News Corp and Nine would claim that this scrutiny just shows the ABC and The Guardian are “left wing”, but it shows no such thing. The ABC and The Guardian are doing a public service in scrutinising a major policy announcement and providing factual analysis comparing the real costs of nuclear and renewable energy.

If a left-wing party announced a different energy policy, they would do exactly the same thing. It is called public interest journalism.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the end of the story. There was one major element of Dutton’s nuclear policy which was only included in one of the 37 news reports I analysed — the motive behind Dutton’s nuclear push. This was included in The Guardian’s Readfearn and Butler explainer, albeit only in two after-thought quotes at the end of the piece.

Under the sub-title ‘How have critics responded?’ The Greens’ Adam Bandt was reported to have said “the nuclear strategy relied on extending the life of fossil fuels”. The Australia Institute’s Rod Campbell similarly said the nuclear plan was a “distraction to prolong fossil fuel use and exports”.

Disappointingly, no articles overtly pointed out to the public that the whole point of Dutton’s nuclear policy was to undermine investment in renewable energy, unsettling the transition to a low carbon economy, to slow down efforts to address climate change, all in aid of fossil fuel and mining billionaires. This exclusion is not just a small part of the story of Dutton’s nuclear policy, it is the story.

This truth, unfortunately, is the story journalists collectively have failed to tell.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | media, reference | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »