Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan: Mad, bad, and extremely dangerous
Giles Parkinson, Renew Economy 13th Dec 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-mad-bad-and-extremely-dangerous/ [excellent graphs on original]
It might seem weirdly appropriate that the federal Coalition should release its nuclear power policy costings on Friday the 13th, considered an unlucky day in western superstition. But that would be to downplay the sheer lunacy, rank dishonesty, and clear danger in Peter Dutton’s energy plans.
Shows like Edward Scissorhands are horror fantasies played out on a screen. But the Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien nuclear plan is a horror show we may have to live and breathe. After so many years, the Coalition is still playing culture wars on the most fundamental issues of our time – and all at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.
It doesn’t matter at which level you look at it, this energy policy makes no sense at all. You could look at it backwards, from behind, sideways, leave it out in the sun for a few days, or even bury it in the garden (please do), the only thing that would change is that it might smell more than it does now.
It would likely take until Christmas to go through all the lies, deceptions and misunderstandings that comprise this policy and these costings, but let’s just focus on a couple of the important ones for now.
The reference to the sheer lunacy and the danger of the Coalition policy comes in Dutton’s desire to simply ignore climate science, along with basic engineering and economics.
Emissions reductions are put off to the never never. And, as Dutton revealed in his press conference through his comments on rooftop solar, he simply does not have a clue about the basic concepts of the energy system.
See: “You can’t charge your battery and your car at same time:” Dutton does not have a clue about energy
Dutton and Co simply want to bring a crashing halt to Australia’s only successful emission reductions efforts – the transition to green energy – and walk away from the country’s natural advantages in wind, solar and storage and the industries that are emerging from that.
They even have the chutzpah to claim that it will result in lower emissions. Which, inevitably, is pure bunkum. But, as Donald Trump has demonstrated, if you “flood the zone with shit”, something will stick – mostly to the front pages of mainstream media.
And that’s what we saw on Friday. A planned leak of the findings resulted in claimed headline “savings” – emblazoned across the front pages of the cheer-leading Murdoch media and the AFR this morning – that the nuclear power plan will save $264 billion.
It is of course, a complete nonsense, and obviously so to anyone who is paying attention, or even bothered to read the Coalition document. We are talking about completely different scenarios, and taking traditional accounting methods away from the international norm.
Dutton and his media followers have made a big deal of Frontier Economics costings of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System which is the basis of Labor policy.
Frontier concedes, however, that the cost of AEMO’s “step change” plan is about what it says it is – $122 billion, based on the standard accounting practice of “net present value.”
But, at the urging of the Coalition, Frontier has published an additional number, around $600 billion, based on the “real cost” and throwing in some more transmission spending.
Dutton has used that number to insist that AEMO and Labor had lied to the Australian people. But it was the former Coalition government who instructed AEMO to cost it this way. And for good reason – it is standard international accounting practice. It is Dutton and O’Brien who are now spreading the lies.
Indeed, the Frontier Economics report actually reveals that the claimed $264 billion in savings parroted by the mainstream media are from two entirely different scenarios. One is from AEMO’s “Step Change”, the other from the Coalition’s version of “progressive change.”
The actual savings on a like for like basis are much smaller, if you can believe Frontier’s costings of nuclear.
Progressive change assumes that demand will not be as great as forecast by AEMO. It assumes much smaller electrification (thanks to the gas industry) and slower uptake of EVs (thanks to the oil industry). It then ignores the $75 billion a year of extra fuel costs that would result from that.
Now let’s go to the Coalition’s plan to shut down just one third of the main grid’s ageing coal fired generators by 2034 – with the rest trying to stay on line until nuclear power plants can be built.
The Coalition says it still thinks the first nuclear power plant can be built by the mid-2030s. The rest of the industry says this will be pretty much impossible until the mid 2040s.
Keeping the coal fired power stations open will not just increase pollution – both within the grid and the industries that depend on it – it will also puts grid reliability at risk.
This week, AEMO had to issue several lack of reserve alerts as another heatwave approached the eastern states. The main reason was that Origin, despite being promised up to $450 million to keep Australia’s biggest coal generator on line for another two years, reported another breakdown at Eraring.
At Bayswater, a unit is offline because of a tube leak. One third of the coal units in Victoria are also offline due to unplanned outages, and so is the country’s newest and “most efficient” coal generator at Kogan Creek, which is also the country’s largest single generation unit.
Dutton and O’Brien insist that these ageing and increasingly decrepit coal fired power plants will only have to operate “a few years longer”. But they are kidding themselves. Their own modelling confirms that.
They are still setting a timeline of 2035 for the first reactors. Will these be large scale of small commercial small modular reactor. No one has built one, or even got a licence to build one.
The Coalition insists that new nuclear can be built, from scratch, in a country with no nuclear infrastructure or know-how to speak of, no work force and no regulatory base ,in about a dozen years. There’s also a golden replica of the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the bottom of your packet of Cornflakes.
A dozen years is the average “delay” in the big nuclear power plants being built in western democracies – the UK, France, and Finland – all of whom have been operating nuclear power plants for decades.
Dutton and O’Brien are now telling us their nuclear plan will result in 14 gigawatt of nuclear capacity – double what they previously said. And Frontier’s modelling shows that coal is going to have to last a lot longer, beyond the official lifetime limits of the coal generators.
Even the Australian Energy Council, one of the most conservative of lobby groups that represents the coal generator owners, believes this is a bad idea and “could result in reliability issues.”
But let’s go back to the conventional way of measuring costs – net present value. The Frontier report includes it, at the very last page of its report. It shows that the difference in costs, on their calculations, is actually $62 billion over 25 years for the step change scenario.
But even that is on the basis of some heroic assumptions on the costs of nuclear. Frontier puts the total cost, including 14 GW of new nuclear power plants, at $142 billion (see table above).
Let’s look at the cost of Hinkley C, the first nuclear power station to be built in the UK for decades. At just 3.2 GW, its cost has already blown out to $A92 billion and is running at least 14 years late from its promised timeline. What does the Coalition know that the rest of the nuclear world does not know?
The Coalition’s vision for renewables also beggars belief. Under its modelling, it estimates the share of wind, solar and hydro will be less than 50 per cent in 2050. That’s in the “progressive” plan that appears to be their chosen one.
If you take the current level of renewables, the already committed large scale projects, and the continued roll out of rooftop and behind the metre solar, the Coalition is essentially telling everyone that the construction of new large scale wind and solar more or less comes to an end with their election next year.
The stupidity of the idea is frightening. Quite how the Coalition figures it could keep the lights on in the 2030s and 2040s is beyond belief.
The Coalition are also trying to convince people that somehow their plan does not need new transmission, or much back-up.
All generation needs back-up, and all generation needs transmission. A 1.4 GW nuclear power plant will be nearly twice the size of the current biggest unit in Australia’s main grid, the currently broken Kogan Creek coal fired generator.
That means it needs twice as much back-up, because if it trips suddenly – which it inevitably will, just look at the patchy performance of the new nuclear power plant in Finland – then the market operator needs to be able to fill in the gaps at a moment’s notice. That’s expensive.
And then, of course, is what to do with your rooftop solar. If the Coalition wants its fleet of nuclear power plants to run “always on” then there may be no room on the grid for your rooftop solar.
Your best bet might be to buy a battery, or better still an electric vehicle. You don’t have to leave the grid, but you will want to make sure that you can have power without it. And you sure don’t have to believe Dutton’s nonsense about solar not being able to charge EVs and batteries at the same time.
But the safest and cheaper option might be to ensure these idiots don’t get elected.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy equals soaring power bills
December 13, 2024, Solutions for Climate Australia, by: The AIM Network, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2024/08/17/advances-plan-destroy-the-greens
Solutions for Climate Australia today called out figures provided by Peter Dutton on the future cost of power from nuclear reactors as expensive and a failure to tackle climate pollution.
“While we are waiting decades for Mr Dutton’s nuclear reactors, the Coalition proposes to pour money into propping up expensive, ageing coal power stations that are already failing, and massively increasing climate pollution.
“CSIRO’s optimistic estimates of the costs of nuclear reactors last week show them as twice as expensive as the renewable energy pathway. Somehow Mr Dutton claims using the most expensive source of electricity will bring down consumer costs.
“Even more bizarrely, the federal Coalition’s plan relies on Australians using 45% less electricity than the independent electricity operator forecasts.
“What matters to consumers in the cost of living crisis we have here and now is the cost of electricity, and yet Mr Dutton is proposing a fantasy to build hugely expensive nuclear reactors on the taxpayer’s dime, decades from now.”
“Yesterday the Liberal Tasmanian Government made a joint announcement with the Labor Federal Government for an offshore wind zone that will produce 20 GW of electricity.”
“It’s time the federal Coalition gets serious about deploying the sun and wind power we have right here and now to bring down power prices and keep the lights on.”
TODAY. Australia’s coming Dutton-deluge of nuclear propaganda
| Australian Independent Media, 14 Dec 24,https://theaimn.com/australias-coming-deluge-of-nuclear-propaganda/ |
There’s something dramatically splendid about King Louis XV of France’s famous statement in 1757 – “After me, the deluge”, interpreted to mean that he knew his reign would leave France in a terrible mess, but meanwhile, let’s enjoy the wealth and fun.
Well, I’m not sure that the predicted election win in Australia for the Liberal-National Coalition will result in wealth and fun, but I think that its aftermath will be a mess.
But, in the meantime, as Peter Dutton has now delivered the Coalition’s statement on the costs of its nuclear power plan, Australia can expect a deluge of another kind – the pro-nuclear propaganda. Australia has had a preview of how this will work, in 2023, with the highly successful campaign to defeat the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
One must give due credit to an American influence – the Atlas Network – for perfecting the spin system. To very briefly outline the work of the Atlas Network: it is a global infrastructure of 500+ ‘Think-Tanks’ including the Centre for Independent Studies, the Institute of Public Affairs and LibertyWorks. Posing as impartial advisers, these “Think Tanks” provide reports and articles designed to direct governments and educational and other social organisations towards policies that improve the profits of big corporations, and remove barriers to their profits. The barriers would be regulations, especially those involved with protecting the environment, and the rights of Indigenous people.
Apart from some funding, and training support, the real focus of the Atlas Network is on LANGUAGE – teaching the stink tanks how to use words to manipulate thinking. George Orwell alerted the world to the way in which fascism uses language, and wrote of “Newspeak”. Now the Atlas Network perfects the method – repetitively using vague and deceptive words to convey a lying message that is aimed at molding public opinion.
Sometimes these words are straight out lies: sometimes just vague words in which the meaning is distorted. The word “elite” is a good example – now used to discredit scientists and other experts so that the public comes to distrust them, and to rubbish their opinions, and their reports, particularly about regulations to protect the environment and Indigenous rights.
FEAR is indeed the currency of the Atlas Network. Fear and distrust of regulations, of officers and organisations involved in human rights and environmental protection. So these stink tanks work to weaken laws, and discredit agencies of human support – such as the United Nations.
Side by side with those messages of fear, come the lying messages of reassurance – for example the story that global heating is not happening, or, if it is, it has nothing to do with human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions. So we don’t need to worry or to do anything to stop these emissions. So we are reassured that nuclear power is “clean “green” “safe” “cheap” “nothing to do with weapons”.
Jeremy Walker explained the process by which the Atlas Network architecture of influence operated in the lead-up to the Voice referendum in 2023.
But we mustn’t let the Americans take all the glory for destroying the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. We have our own Australian spin network – called “Advance”, (sometimes “Advance Australia”). Advance has been around for some years. Financially and ideologically backed by a group of prominent business leaders, Advance’s membership and funding is obscure. Like Atlas, it teaches the think tanks, and some universities, how to word misinformation campaigns about climate change, indigenous rights, and nuclear power. It also spreads these messages via the conventional, and the social media, especially Facebook. Advance is at present working strenuously to discredit and destroy The Greens, the only political party genuinely opposing the nuclear industry.
So – how to deal with the deluge?
Australia has some fine journalists in the mainstream and the alternative media. They are already pointing out the flaws in the Coalition’s argument for nuclear power. Cost seems to be the main one: it is noted that Dutton’s costing is refuted by the CSIRO and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Other big factors are delay, the increased greenhouse emissions, the opposition of some rural communities.
So Australia’s reputable commentators are doing a good job, in shining light on what is now the Coalition’s big election policy – nuclear power for Australia.
The anti-nuclear movement has a history of respectfully answering peo-nuclear proponents, sometimes in the same detailed jargonistic language that nuclear physicists and engineers prefer to use. At the political and academic level, they have done so well, providing effective information and detail. However, apart from Helen Caldicott, no-one has been game to spit it out forcefully to the great unwashed. The result is that – being ‘dazzled with science’, we ordinary mortals are inclined to just give up, and “leave it to the experts”.
Australia, the only continent with one national government, is blessed with world-leading renewable energy resources, and is already well on the way to genuinely clean energy, especially in rooftop solar. Australia now has the opportunity to lead the world in this. Our nuclear-free movement can promote the consciousness of a positive clean energy future for Australia, by using clear, forceful, jargon-free messages.
My worry is that there will now be a well-funded barrage of simplistic pro-nuclear propaganda -that will reach people everywhere, of all levels, especially in the outer suburbs and the regions – where everybody is watching Facebook, YouTube etc, and where in the ‘mainstream’, Murdoch media dominates anyway.
Will the nuclear-free movement be able to counteract the Atlas/Advance language methods? Atlas/Advance are so very good at it – using brief, repetitive, misleading language.They have the “hooray” words – “justice”, “life”, “freedom” and those “positives” – “clean” “green” etc. They have the “negatives” – “Hitler, “taxes” – and words used negatively “elites” “bureaucrat”, “government official” and “public servant”. And as well, they use vague, really, almost meaningless words – that waffle, weaken, and obscure the argument- “may” “can” “could” “might”, “arguably”.
We don’t know when the federal election will take place. At the moment, Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is receiving much media scepticism. But it’s very early days. Advance is already swinging into action – starting with the anti-Greens campaign. The deluge will follow in no time.
But – I’m hoping that sensible people across Australia will have learned from the debacle of the Voice referendum. There are some very sound and thoughtful people out in the regions – where Dutton says that nuclear reactors will be placed, and these people are already resisting in a clear and practical way.
The Coalition’s master plan: Bring large scale wind, solar and battery storage installations to a halt
Giles Parkinson, Renew Economy 13th Dec 2024,
If you really want to understand where the federal Coalition’s nuclear energy policy is taking us, and it’s real purpose, you need to turn to Figure 6 on the costings analysis provided by its consultant Frontier Economics.
This is the estimation of capacity installed on Australia’s main grid over the next 25 years. It is based on Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s preferred scenario – the one he used to emblazon the claims of $260 billion in savings across the front pages of the mainstream media on Friday.
Since this is the comparison that Dutton is seeking to sell to the Australian public, let’s look at in detail.
In contrast to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change scenario, the one that the federal Labor government has used for its policy and planning blueprint, the Coalition’s Progressive Scenario imagines a world still revolving around the concept of baseload power, of petrol and diesel powered cars, of gas-powered homes and a lot less renewables.
The scenario also assumes a lot less rooftop solar, which means that the Coalition is banking on consumers buying more from the grid, and paying money to big utilities such as the Hong Kong owned ElectricityAustralia.
But the Frontier model focuses only on large scale capacity and generation. For large scale solar it is a bad look: Just a doubling of capacity from 2025 to 2050. Given that 5 GW of capacity is likely already locked in, that reduces the rollout of large scale solar to a trickle over the next two decades.
For wind, the story is actually worse. The modelling assume no offshore wind at all, given the Coalition’s promise to scrap the newly declared offshore wind zones, and despite the legislated target in Victoria of 9 GW by 2040.
For onshore wind, Frontier puts the installed capacity in 2025 at 12.8 GW (according to OpenNEM it would be closer to 14 GW by the end of that year, and predicts the total rising to 28 GW by 2050.
Given that more than 5 GW of wind power is already locked in and under construction or contract, then that is a painfully slow build rate over the coming two decades.
It’s the Coalition telling local and international investors: “F*** off we don’t want you here:” And forcing consumers to buy more power from the big utilities at the same time.
Apart from scrapping the offshore wind zones, the federal Coalition has also promised to “rip up contracts” for large scale underwriting agreements written with the federal government.
According to the Frontier report , Large scale renewables total 49 per cent (wind 32 per cent and solar 17 per cent) by 2050, with nuclear likely to be 38 per cent, assuming that everything gets built in time. The graph above shows limited growth in each of wind, solar and utility storage after 2030.
“This … would represent a dramatic slowdown in the installation and investment of renewable energy across Australia and will be a massive shock and concern to investors who have invested $40 billion into large-sale renewable energy in Australia since 2020,” Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton said.
“Australia has been a world leader in rooftop solar with over four million systems installed on homes and small businesses and an additional 300,000 plus systems being installed every year. The Coalition’s plan means millions of Australians would miss out on the chance to install solar.”
And Thornton also pointed out that it would not be good for the owners of rooftop solar. Currently, households are up in arms at the prospect of having their panels switched off – in an emergency – once or twice a summer.
In the Coalition’s nuclear plan, it would likely be a daily occurrence to ensure that the nuclear generators are “always on.”
“A nuclear-powered energy grid would also be a disaster for the four million Australian homes that have already installed a rooftop solar system as a way to lower their power bills,” Thornton said. “These systems would have to be switched off regularly if Australia was to move to inflexible nuclear power.”
Dutton’s nuclear plan: An energy grid powered by endless spin
The commercial media have dutifully queued up to accept Peter Dutton’s carefully planned ‘taking out the rubbish’ announcement on nuclear power.
Bernard Keane, Crikey, Dec 13, 2024
For well over two years, Peter Dutton has been talking about nuclear power. He formally embraced it 18 months ago. At any point since mid-2023, he could have unveiled a detailed, costed policy. All we’ve had in that time is repeated promises, usually delivered by Dutton’s News Corp stenographers, that the details were about to be released.
It’s taken so long that the CSIRO has had time to conduct not one but two of its annual “GenCost” reports demonstrating what even the layperson can work out from the overseas experience of nuclear power: it’s massively more expensive than renewables, particularly the mythical “small modular reactors” that Dutton claims will be up and running by the mid-2030s……………………………..(Subscribers only) more https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/12/13/what-is-peter-dutton-nuclear-energy-plan-costing-modelling/?utm_campaign=weekender&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Is big tech going all in on nuclear? Google and Microsoft have just pledged $45 billion on renewables
Sophie Vorrath, Dec 13, 2024, Renew Economy
https://reneweconomy.com.au/is-big-tech-going-all-in-on-nuclear-google-and-microsoft-have-pledged-45-billion-spend-on-renewables/
Did you hear the one about big tech going nuclear? One of the lines being trotted out in support of nuclear power by shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien – and faithfully reproduced by the Murdoch press – is that everyone’s doing it, including global tech giants Google and Microsoft.
“Not only does Labor claim to know the economics of nuclear better than companies like Microsoft who signed a massive nuclear deal, but they also think they can run the numbers better than (US banks and financiers) who have come out in favour of nuclear energy,” O’Brien said in September.
Microsoft did announce, in September, a 20 year power purchase agreement with Constellation Energy to reboot one unit at the mothballed Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania and rebadge it as the Crane Clean Energy Centre.
Three Mile Island was, in 1979, the site of the worst commercial nuclear power accident in US history. It was shuttered in 2019 for economic reasons, with Constellation’s then parent company Exelon Corp, saying in 2017 that its closure was due to lack of financial rescue from the state.
This is not unusual. According to TechCrunch, in the last decade, seven nuclear reactors have been decommissioned in the US, while only two new ones have been switched on.
Notwithstanding the fact that restarting a nuclear plant that has been shut down for five years has never been done before (according to reports, Constellation Energy is reportedly seeking a taxpayer-subsidised loan it hopes will save it $122 million in borrowing costs) this somewhat baffling deal is expected to supply around 850 MW.
Google, meanwhile, in October announced plans to invest in small modular reactors to meet its own growing data centre needs and Amazon followed suit, with news of “three new agreements to support the development of nuclear energy projects,” again with a focus on the the as-yet commercially unproven SMR technology.
So, yes – all three of these companies have recently announced plans to invest in nuclear power – albeit in markets where it already exists (although not in the case of SMRs) and in technology and applications that are highly speculative.
Does this mean they have come over all Team Nuclear? Hardly.
Amazon, as it bragged in October, has been the largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy in the world for four years running, according to Bloomberg NEF, having invested billions of dollars in more than 500 solar and wind projects globally, which together are capable of generating enough energy to power the equivalent of 7.6 million US homes.
Amazon met its goal of sourcing 100% of the electricity its uses with renewable energy in 2023 – seven years ahead of the 2030 target.
Google announced just this week that it was funding $US20 billion ($A31 billion) worth of renewable power projects across the US, in a deal with Intersect Power and investment fund TPG Rise Climate to develop power to drive several gigawatt-scale data centers.
Microsoft, last week, joined a US investor Acadia Infrastructure Capital and other companies to launch the Climate and Communities Investment Coalition (CCIC) to develop a $US9 billion ($A14 billion) pipeline of renewable energy projects across the country, as reported in Reuters.
On its website, Microsoft says it invested in over 23.6 million megawatt-hours of renewable energy in 2023 financial year – “enough to power Paris with renewable electricity for about two years.”
Earlier this year, the company announced plans to procure some 9.5GW of solar panels from Qcells for PPAs through 2032 – adding about 1.5GW every year. In April Microsoft revealed in a job listing that it had more than 20GW of renewable energy under contract.
Australian nuclear news 10 -16 December,
Headlines as they come in:
- Solar switch off: Dutton’s nuclear plan amounts to declaration of war against household energy systems
- The Coalition’s nuclear energy plan takes a sharp turn away from a cheaper, cleaner future
- Folly of Fission Impossible exposed by the fiscal facts
- The Coalition’s nuclear costings and their rubbery assumptions take us back to being a climate pariah.
- Less power, more climate pollution: Four ways Dutton is cooking the books on nuclear.
- Coalition’s eye-watering nuclear price tag could buy solar for every Australian home that doesn’t have it (five times over)
- Dutton’s nuclear promises billions for fossil fuels and a smaller economy for the rest of us
- Biggest losers from Coalition’s nuclear plan will be Australia’s 4 million solar households, industry says
- “South Australia’s Copper Strategy lacks ‘social license’ and fails contemporary public interest expectations and environmental and legislative standards”
- Energy generators poke holes in Dutton’s nuclear plan as questions over costings pile up
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy equals soaring power bills.
- Nuclear Neverland: The Lost Boys of Costings | The West Report -masse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSeaybp9oAA
- The Coalition’s master plan: Bring large scale wind, solar and battery storage installations to a halt.
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan: Mad, bad, and extremely dangerous
- The Coalition reveals the cost of its nuclear power plan – but the devil is in the missing detail.
- Dutton’s nuclear plan: An energy grid powered by endless spin.
- Is big tech going all in on nuclear? Google and Microsoft have just pledged $45 billion on renewables
- Fears nuclear power ‘may stop people moving to the bush’ .
- Dutton to reveal just how much he’s gambling on nuclear power,
- Not a hope in hell’ nuclear power can replace Australian coal-fired power by 2040, inquiry hears
- Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia: Exposing Ted O’Brien’s dishonest
- Peter Dutton’s bid to politicise top science agency is ‘absurd’, former CSIRO energy director says.
- CSIRO’s nuclear costings have recklessly ignored construction risk, and the taxpayer will pay
Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia: Exposing Ted O’Brien’s dishonesty.
| Philip White, 11 Dec 24 |
Ted O’Brien’s (Opposition energy spokesperson) disrespectful and dishonest questioning of witnesses during the hearings of the Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.
At today’s hearing in Lithgow one of the witnesses started to call him out. This is the first time that I can remember anyone really challenging him. It would be helpful if he was called out more clearly, ideally in a way that strikes at the heart of his dishonesty. Make it hard for him to use these tactics.
He regularly asks questions along the following lines:
“Have you read such and such a report?” (99% of the time the witnesses have not.) He then quotes or paraphrases (or misrepresents) something out of the report and asks the witness to answer “Yes” or “No” to some loaded proposition. When the witness doesn’t give him the Yes/No answer he wants, he interrupts them and insists that they answer Yes or No. Loaded questions might be along the following lines:
Based on this report, would you agree that nuclear is a viable option?
Or
Do you think you know better than the [unquestionably authoritative] author of this report?
(These are not direct quotes, just the general gist. See below for a specific example.)
This approach is disrespectful, because it is unreasonable to expect witnesses to have read every official report that O’Brien chooses to use (or misuse) to back up his position. Of course, O’Brien knows they haven’t read the report.
It is also disrespectful, because it is generally used for the purpose of making a fool of the witness in order to destroy their credibility.
It is dishonest, because he quotes or paraphrases the reports selectively, out of context, and probably misrepresents the reports.
An example from today’s hearing in Lithgow (11/12/2024) illustrates the point. It can be heard from 1.24.55 on the following link:
These two witnesses stood up for themselves, but on many other occasions throughout these hearings, the witnesses have been left looking silly, even though the fault is with O’Brien’s dishonest approach. (Note that a similar approach is used by Coalition “Supplementary Member” of the Inquiry, Simon Kennedy.)
Ted O’Brien: “My question was going to go to your comments on the timing for the construction of those plants — Generation 3, Generation 3+. And my question is, Do you recognise the experience of the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to advice on the timing of introducing nuclear energy to new nations? And also the experience and authority of ANSTO, the government’s nuclear technology advisers, when it comes to the construction of nuclear power plants?”
Geoffrey Miell (retired mechanical engineer): “I look at the actual construction times around the world….”
O’Brien then interrupted Miell’s very reasonable answer and demanded that he give a Yes/No answer to the question “Do you recognise…?”
When Miell offered a variation of his original response, O’Brien asked, “Does that mean you do not recognise their experience and expertise sir?”
After this, at 1.28.25, Sarah Elliot (nursing academic and member of NSW Nurses and Midwives Association) called O’Brien out:
“I will say that I have read transcripts Mr O’Brien where you have misled …[interrupted by bickering between Chair Repacholi and Deputy Chair O’Brien]… Mr O’Brien can I ask you to afford this panel the respect you gave to the last ones. We may not be in agreeance with your views, but can you please respect this panel that is before you right now … I’m disgusted with your behaviour as a representative of…”
The dishonesty of O’Brien’s line of questioning is exposed when you read the latest CSIRO GenCost draft report. That report makes the following comment about the IAEA’s timing estimates:
Nuclear development lead time
“The development lead time includes the construction period plus all of the preconstruction activities such as planning, permitting and financing. Many stakeholders have agreed with the GenCost estimate of at least 15 years lead time for nuclear generation. Those stakeholders that are more optimistic cite two alternative sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who have an estimate of 10 to 15 years and the recent completion of a nuclear project in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had a 12 year lead time. Both estimates are in relation to building nuclear for the first time. This consultation draft provides additional analysis of nuclear lead times to examine this issue more closely. We examine recent construction times and their relationship with the level of democracy in that country.
“In the last 5 years, median construction time has increased to 8.2 years compared to 6 years when the IAEA made their estimate in 2015.” (Executive Summary, p. x)
So the IAEA’s estimate is a 2015 estimate. In the 9 years since then we’ve seen massive blowouts in construction times in the US, UK, France and Finland. Those projects were already in trouble in 2015, but since then they’ve blown out much more, while the VC Summer plant in South Carolina was abandoned part way through construction. But O’Brien still uses the 2015 IAEA estimate to put witnesses on the spot. As for ANSTO, their credibility was demolished by John Quiggen in the following article.https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/20/coalition-nuclear-power-ansto-csiro-small-modular-reactors/
If you can’t access Crickey’s article, please read the quote on pages 15 and 16 of the submission by FoE Adelaide. Submission to House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy No. 88 at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions
Another example was when O’Brien used the first Frontier Economics report (the second can be expected any day) to say the total system cost of the electricity grid in 2050 will be five times what the ALP Government has claimed (AEMO’s ISP report). He also completely misrepresented Minister Bown’s response to that report. However, on this occasion, Tennant Reed (Australian Industry Group), who had actually read the Frontier Economics report, interrupted him (5.55.50). This caused a problem for O’Brien, because his brazen dishonesty was exposed by a real expert. Unfortunately, Reed was too polite. He didn’t call out O’Brien’s dishonesty. He just explained the source of the difference between AMEO’s ISP figure and the figure in Frontier Economics report. “The two numbers are different sorts of number, rather than greatly in disagreement with each other.”
See the YouTube link from from 5.53.50:
The above two examples are examples of where O’Brien was actually challenged, but, unfortunately, not exposed for the charlatan that he is. I am hopeful that if witnesses are forewarned of his tactics, they might be in a better position to stand up to him, ideally to expose him, but definitely not to be intimidated by his dirty tactics.
Not a hope in hell’ nuclear power can replace Australian coal-fired power by 2040, inquiry hears
Energy industry group calls for policy push on faster renewables rollout as ACTU energy adviser says Coalition’s proposal won’t create ‘a single job’
Graham Readfearn, 12 Dec 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/12/not-a-hope-in-hell-nuclear-power-can-replace-australian-coal-fired-power-by-2040-inquiry-hears
Australia’s industry group for electricity retailers and generators told a nuclear inquiry the country should focus on policies that will drive a faster rollout of renewable energy and storage, saying nuclear is unlikely to be a viable coal-fired power replacement.
As the Coalition prepares to reveal costings this week for its plan to put reactors at seven sites around Australia, high profile energy commentator Simon Holmes à Court told the parliamentary inquiry on Thursday there was “not a hope in hell” of nuclear reactors producing power before 2040.
The chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, Louisa Kinnear, who represents electricity generators, retailers and gas sellers, said the electricity grid’s transition “needs to continue at a significant pace to ensure a cost-effective and low-emissions transition, as thermal (coal) generation is phased out”.
She said the lowest cost path for Australia’s electricity grid to lower its emissions was through solar and wind, backed by storage and gas, but added “whether that says energy is cheaper into the future than prices people are paying now” was “up for debate”.
Kinnear said it was “highly unlikely” that nuclear would be a viable replacement for coal-fired power over the next 10 to 15 years.
“We would hate progress on the transition to be stalled because we are focused on technologies that are not available at this moment in time,” she said.
Baseload electricity generators, such as coal and nuclear, faced problems in Australia because the electricity network was increasingly being designed to accommodate a mix of generators, including renewables, she said.
Kinnear said rooftop solar was also displacing significant amounts of coal-fired power, and if nuclear could play a role in the future, it would need to be able to generate flexibly, similar to gas plants.
“The likelihood of us needing generation sources that run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, into the future is very limited,” she said.
A future Coalition government would need to see federal and state bans lifted and has insisted it could have a large-scale nuclear reactor working by 2037.
The Climate 200 founder and energy expert, Holmes à Court, told the inquiry: “There’s not a hope in hell that we would have nuclear in Australia before 2040.”
“I have shown with a set of fantastical assumptions such as bipartisanship across federal and state level of government that 2044 is an optimistic schedule.”
Holmes à Court, who was appearing in a personal capacity but is a high profile figure due to his group’s support of independent federal candidates, said he was a big fan of nuclear technology and wished Australia had gone nuclear in the 1970s.
But he said his 2044 estimate relied on several generous assumptions, including smooth approvals, projects sticking to schedule and budget, and the public ignoring the “terrible economics” of nuclear.
“2044 would be an optimistic target for commercial operation of a first nuclear power unit,” he said.
“It is practically impossible to go faster, and even 2044 relies on the Coalition controlling the House and Senate six months from now, the states dropping bans and keeping that support in place for 20 years.”
He gave an example of Czechia, which he said in 2022 had agreed on a new nuclear plant to be built by a South Korean company. Holmes à Court said the current schedule had the company pouring first nuclear-grade concrete in 2029 and the plant delivering power in 2038 – a 16-year timeline.
Helen Cook, a nuclear law expert and former chair of a group within the World Nuclear Association, said it was feasible Australia could have its first nuclear reactor working within 10 to 12 years.
Australia was well placed to launch a nuclear power programme, she said, and the most efficient approach was to roll out multiple deployments of the same type of reactor.
Daniel Sherrell, a senior adviser on climate and energy at the Australian Council of Trade Unions, told the inquiry the Coalition’s proposal for nuclear power would not “create a single job” for Australia.
“It cannot attract investors and cannot compete economically, and is forecast to remain the most expensive power source in Australia for decades,” he said.
“We don’t have to count on the [nuclear] mirage appearing – we have jobs now in the renewable economy.”
CSIRO’s nuclear costings have recklessly ignored construction risk, and the taxpayer will pay
On Monday, the CSIRO released updated estimates for the cost of nuclear as
well as a range of other power generation technologies. According to the
CSIRO’s analysis, producing power from a conventional, large-scale
reactors would cost between one and half and two and half times more than
from a 90% renewables system backed up by batteries and gas.
Unfortunately, the CSIRO’s costing for nuclear power was not a particularly
comprehensive one. It doesn’t adequately take account of the complexity
involved in nuclear power plant construction and high risk of budget cost
blow-outs with this technology.
The CSIRO’s Gencost publication assumes
the cost of building a nuclear reactor in 2030 will be around $8.5 billion
for a one gigawatt unit. Yet the experience from real world projects across
Europe and the United States indicates the lower bound cost is $14.9
billion and the upper end is $27.5 billion.
Renew Economy 11th Dec 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiros-nuclear-costings-have-recklessly-ignored-construction-risk-and-the-taxpayer-will-pay/
The legal decision on the Murdoch media – what does it mean for us?
NOEL WAUCHOPE, DEC 13, 2024, https://theaimn.com/the-legal-decision-on-the-murdoch-media-what-does-it-mean-for-us/
There is nothing either good or bad, but only thinking makes it so.
Shakespeare’s profound idea applies to that recent legal case, about the Murdoch Family Trust, in the Probate Court in Nevada.
The 93 year-old Rupert Murdoch sought to change the existing “irrevocable trust” which is to govern the arrangements of his media empire, after his death. The issue was that the trust should be in “the best interests” of the Murdoch children.
Rupert Murdoch argued that after his death, his children would benefit best if control of his media empire were to be changed from the existing trust arrangement which gives control to four of his children – Lachlan, Elizabeth, James and Prudence. Murdoch wanted that changed to control by only eldest son Lachlan. The other three disagreed, and took the case to court.
Rupert Murdoch’s given reason was that the whole media enterprise would thus be more profitable, – so all four children would get more money. That way, Elizabeth, James, and Prudence would not have control, but would be richer, and this would be “in their best interest”. Under the present unchanged “irrevocable” trust arrangement, they would share the control with Lachlan, but they would be less rich.
Many commentators are arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s real goal is power and influence – so that is why he wanted the very right-wing Lachlan to be in charge of the media show. Perhaps this is true.
The case was heard in a secret court, but the core of Rupert Murdoch’s argument was that the children’s monetary gain was in their best interest, rather than them having any control of the media and its content.
Apparently the three did not think so, and neither did Commissioner Edmund J Gorman, who ruled in the children’s favour, concluding that Murdoch and his son Lachlan, had acted in “bad faith”, in a “carefully crafted charade”.
Lachlan shares the same right-wing views as his father does, even more so,- while Elizabeth, James and Prudence are reported as having more moderate views. Murdoch has controlling interests in Fox News and News Corp , the Wall Street Journal, in the UK the Times and the Sun, the Australian and others. Apparently it is assumed by all, that the media empire will continue its current record profits only under Lachlan’s leadership. In 2023–24 the Fox Corporation’s net income was US$1.5 billion (A$2.35 billion).
This case raises the question – what is the purpose of the news media ?
According to the Murdoch argument, the purpose is to enrich the owners of the media. That would include all the shareholders, too, I guess. The means by which this is done is to provide entertainment and information to the public. And this is central to Rupert Murdoch’s stated argument.
Some people, including many journalists, and perhaps the Murdoch children, might see the informational role of the news media as its main purpose, with excessive profitability as a secondary concern.
Apparently Elizabeth, James and Prudence preferred to have some control in the media empire, even if that meant less money for them. They thought that “having a say” in the business was in their best interest. It is possible that they might take some pride in news journalism that would be more accurate and balanced than the Murdoch media is now.
Only thinking makes it so
The best example of “Murdoch media thinking” -is in its coverage of climate change. For decades, the Murdoch view was pretty much climate denialism – climate concern seen as a “cult of the elite” and the “effects of global warming have so far proved largely benign”. But more recently, this view was moderated, towards concern that some action should be taken to limit global warming – coinciding with the new right-wing push for nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
In the USA, Murdoch media has a powerful influence, supported by the big corporations, and the right wing in general, and by the Trump publicity machine, but it does have some competition from other right wing outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Wire, and in talk radio, and blogs. It has lost some influence in the UK, following its phone hacking scandal in 2011.
That Murdoch interpretation contradicts the view of thousands of scientists, yet is welcomed by the fossil fuel industries, the nuclear industry, and the right-wing governments that they support. Similarly, the Murdoch media’s view on international politics generally favours military action that the USA supports – on Ukraine’s side, by Israel, and now in Syria. All this is seen to be good – by the USA weapons manufacturers and salesmen, US and UK politicians, and presumably by the public.
In the USA, Murdoch media has a powerful influence, supported by the big corporations, and the right wing in general, and by the Trump publicity machine, but it does have some competition from other right wing outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Wire, and in talk radio, and blogs. It has lost some influence in the UK, following its phone hacking scandal in 2011.
In Australia, Murdoch media is far more pervasive, and has been described as a virtual monopoly – with the only national newspaper, newspapers in each state, (often the only newspaper), and News Corp controls radio and television in Australia through a number of assets.
So – what now, after this remarkable probate court decision?
Commissioner Gorman’s recommendation could still be rejected by a district judge. Murdoch’s lawyers can appeal the decision. Even if the decision is finally upheld, it will be a complicated process to rearrange the control of the media in the event of Rupert Murdoch’s death – and that might not happen for a decade or more. News Corp has a dual-class share structure which gives the family 41% of company votes, despite having just 14% of an overall stake in the company. Shareholders might change this arrangement.
In the meantime – fertile ground for endless speculation on what it all might mean – for the share price, for the future direction of the media, for the Murdoch family relationships.
Only thinking makes it so
Some see this legal decision as such a blow to the Murdoch empire – leading to its fatal collapse. And that thought can be viewed as a bad outcome. Even if Rupert Murdoch overturns the decision on appeal, it might have dealt a big blow to the empire.
Some welcome it, visualising a change in direction, with a more progressive media, directed by the three siblings with their more moderate opinions. For Australians who don’t like Donald Trump, and fear a Peter Dutton election win in 2025, well, it really doesn’t matter much. For the foreseeable future, the political right wing is still hanging on to its grip on news and information across this continent, thanks to the Murdoch empire.
Fears nuclear power ‘may stop people moving to the bush’
Stephanie Gardiner, 12 Dec 24, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/fears-nuclear-power-may-stop-people-moving-to-the-bush-20241211-p5kxn2
Regional Australia is having its “phoenix moment” as more people move to the bush, according to a local councillor, but some residents fear the Coalition’s nuclear plan could hinder growth and prosperity.
The Coalition has earmarked seven sites for nuclear reactors at former and closing coal power plants across Australia, including at Lithgow’s Mount Piper power station in central west NSW.
Tom Evangelidis, who sits on Lithgow City Council, told a parliamentary inquiry his family moved to the town at the foot of the NSW Blue Mountains four years ago for its affordability and proximity to Sydney.
The presence of a nuclear reactor could dissuade others from settling in the region at a time when it is planning a bright future, Mr Evangelidis told the parliamentary committee sitting in Lithgow on Wednesday.
“This is our phoenix moment,” he said, referring to the mythical creature that rises from the ashes as a symbol of renewal and progress. “Nuclear in our region will stop that.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pledged to release the costings of his nuclear plan soon, having slammed an experts’ report that showed solar and wind remained the cheapest forms of energy.
Mount Piper operator EnergyAustralia has plans for a 500-megawatt battery energy storage system adjacent to the site, while also looking into pumped hydro at nearby Lake Lyell.
Further west near Dubbo, there is a proposed Renewable Energy Zone, with 4.5 gigawatts of potential capacity through solar, wind and new transmission infrastructure.
Peter Hennessy, who lives on a property at Bathurst, said communities have been left “high and dry” by planning laws and consultation on renewable projects.
“[Energy Minister Chris Bowen] would have solar everywhere, couldn’t care less about the countryside at all,” Mr Hennessy said.
“[It’s] just an absolute disgrace and total disregard to the welfare of the land or the people surrounding or indeed anywhere else.”
Jim Blackwood, a retired GP and vice president of the Bathurst Community Climate Action Network, said it was redundant to debate the pros and cons of nuclear because it would take too long to establish.
“The issue is we need to do something now, and we need to do it in a time frame that is going to make a difference,” Dr Blackwood told the hearing.
Lithgow is at the front line of climate change tensions, facing the end of its economic base in the fossil fuel industry while also recovering from the Black Summer bushfires.
“Four years ago, this whole town was surrounded by an inferno, a raging inferno,” Dr Blackwood said.
“All the hills were a fire, and so those two things are basically what’s confronting all of us.”
The inquiry is due to sit in Sydney on Thursday.
Dutton to reveal just how much he’s gambling on nuclear power
By James Massola, Paul Sakkal, Mike Foley and David Crowe, December 12, 2024 , https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-reveal-just-how-much-he-s-gambling-on-nuclear-power-20241210-p5kxai.html
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will ask Australians to support hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on nuclear energy, including a controversial move to use taxpayer subsidies to build the industry while promising to bring down household electricity bills.
The Coalition pledge comes as an exclusive survey reveals deep concerns about use of taxpayer funds to start the sector, with only 21 per cent of voters in favour of taxpayer investments or subsidies for nuclear power.
The Resolve Political Monitor, conducted for this masthead, showed renewable energy was more popular, with 45 per cent of voters backing subsidies for rooftop solar and 34 per cent supporting subsidies for home batteries – an option Labor is exploring as an election policy next year.
Dutton is expected to reveal more details of his plan on Friday with a pledge to build seven full-scale nuclear power stations, rather than smaller “modular” reactors, to deliver baseload electricity and lower the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Coalition MPs will be briefed on the plan in a party room meeting on Friday morning at 10am.
A key part of the plan will be an assumption that coal-fired power stations will continue to operate while a Coalition government awards contracts to build the nuclear plants, even though energy companies are planning to stop using coal over the next two decades.
Recent modelling by consultancy Frontier Economics for the Coalition put a cost of $642 billion on Labor’s renewables rollout to 2050. As first reported by this masthead last week, the opposition will claim its nuclear plan will cost about $400 billion over the same period.
Subsidising power sources
Q: Which, if any, of the following do you think deserve subsidy or investment by taxpayers?
Rooftop solar
45%
Home batteries
34%
Renewables in general, such as wind and solar
33%
Large-scale batteries
28%
Large-scale solar farms
26%
Nuclear-powered electricity
21%
Hydro-electric energy from dams
21%
Natural gas-powered electricity
20%
Large-scale wind turbines on land
19%
Large-scale wind turbines off the coast
19%
Undecided
15%
Coal-fired electricity
13%
None of these
9%
n=1604
Source: Resolve Political Monitor
Energy Minister Chris Bowen rejects the $642 billion figure and stands by the energy grid operator’s forecast of $122 billion. The dispute is based on different ways of accounting for costs in the future.
Opposition veterans affairs spokesman Barnaby Joyce, one of the most outspoken proponents of nuclear power within the Coalition, said Australians had to decide whether “you want a grid that works or you don’t”.
Asked about earlier reports of a $500 billion projected cost, Joyce told this masthead: “It always was going to be this much. But we are spending $24 billion for pumped hydro, which gives maybe a day of power, and then you have to pay for transmission lines. The per-reactor price is lower.”
A key part of the Coalition argument is the cost blowout in the Snowy 2.0 project to generate more hydropower in the Snowy Mountains, while a nuclear project in the United Arab Emirates, backed by South Korean company KEPCO, has delivered results on time.
Joyce contrasted the Coalition plan with the controversial plan for the Hinkley Point C reactor in the United Kingdom, which is behind schedule, or the use of small modular reactors (SMR) in other countries.
“We are not devising a new reactor like in England, and we aren’t using an SMR,” he said.
“We are doing this with proven technology like in the UAE, it’s more economical that way. And that means the time frame can be realistic.”
Another member of the shadow cabinet, who asked not to be named, said most Australians were not concerned about nuclear power being rolled out as it would not be built anywhere near their homes.
“The biggest positive is that Peter has floated a big idea, a difficult idea, and he’s had the courage to do it. The debate over this will end up being modelling at 50 paces,” they said.
The Resolve Political Monitor found 34 per cent of voters supported the use of nuclear power, while 28 per cent were against it. Another 24 per cent said they did not have a strong view but were open to the government investigating its use.
The survey, conducted by research company Resolve Strategic, found 54 per cent of Coalition voters supported nuclear power while only 21 per cent of Labor voters and 15 per cent of Greens supporters said the same.
The question was: “There has been some debate about the use of nuclear power in Australia recently. What is your own view on the use of nuclear power in Australia?” The question did not outline the Coalition policy, given it had not been released.
The Resolve Political Monitor surveyed 1604 eligible voters from Wednesday to Sunday, generating results with a margin of error of 2.4 per cent.
While many Australians remain open to nuclear energy, views have tended to shift against the energy source since the survey asked about the issue more than one year ago.
The survey in October last year found that 33 per cent supported nuclear power and 29 per cent were open to the government investigating its use, leading to a total of 62 per cent who were prepared to back or consider it. This total slipped to 58 per cent in the latest survey.
The number of voters against nuclear increased from 24 per cent in October last year to 28 per cent in the latest survey.
In a separate question about taxpayer subsidies, the Resolve Political Monitor found 45 per cent of voters supported federal investments or subsidies for rooftop solar – the most favoured option. In contrast, only 13 per cent supported taxpayer subsidies for coal-fired electricity.
Power bills would rise by about $665 a year to repay the cost of building seven nuclear plants, according to analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, based on the repayments needed to fund the average of construction costs from reactors recently built around the world.
The Coalition policy assumes a smaller addition of renewable energy to the electricity grid compared to government policy, which forecasts an increase in the share of renewable energy to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
The opposition has claimed the influx of renewables, which currently supply 40 per cent of electricity, will increase power bills and the risk of blackouts and disrupt regional communities where wind and solar farms are built.
Another key point of difference is the opposition’s assumption that the nation’s coal plants will run for decades longer than the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has forecast.
AEMO predicts that 90 per cent of coal-fired generation will be shut down before 2035, with closures complete by 2040.
The opposition has said its first nuclear reactor will be completed by 2035, while experts including the CSIRO say 2040 is the earliest possible date. A fully operational fleet of nuclear reactors cannot be expected before 2050.
Antarctica is in crisis and we are scrambling to understand its future
The last two years have seen unprecedented falls in the levels of sea ice around Antarctica, which serves as a protective wall for the continent’s huge ice sheets. Researchers are now racing to understand the global impact of what could happen next
By James Woodford, 2 December 2024
If all our fear and uncertainty over climate change could be distilled into a single statistic, then arguably it was delivered to an emergency summit on the future of the Antarctic last month.
Nerilie Abram at the Australian National University, Canberra, opened her presentation with a slide headlined “Antarctic sea ice has declined precipitously since 2014, and in July 2023 exceeded a minus 7 sigma event”.
Antarctica is in crisis and we are scrambling to understand its future.
The last two years have seen unprecedented falls in the levels of sea ice
around Antarctica, which serves as a protective wall for the continent’s
huge ice sheets. Researchers are now racing to understand the global impact
of what could happen next.
If all our fear and uncertainty over climate
change could be distilled into a single statistic, then arguably it was
delivered to an emergency summit on the future of the Antarctic last month.
Nerilie Abram at the Australian National University, Canberra, opened her
presentation with a slide headlined “Antarctic sea ice has declined
precipitously since 2014, and in July 2023 exceeded a minus 7 sigma
event”.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, the 7
sigma event was the lowest maximum since records began in 1979. This year
was the second lowest, with Antarctic sea ice “stalling out” at a
maximum extent of 17.16 million square kilometres, or just 200,000 square
kilometres more than last year. Remarkably, that is 1.55 million square
kilometres below the expected average extent.
In other words, in the past
two years an area of ice nearly 6.5 times the size of the UK has
disappeared. Another way to imagine it is that the ring of sea ice that
forms every winter around the entire Antarctic continent has contracted by
an average of 120 kilometres, says Abram.
New Scientist 2nd Dec 2024
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2458211-antarctica-is-in-crisis-and-we-are-scrambling-to-understand-its-future/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 