Dutton axes third wind farm ahead of nuclear pitch
AFR Phillip Coorey, Dec 5, 2024
Peter Dutton has upped the ante on energy ahead of the release of his nuclear power policy, vowing to scrap plans for a massive wind farm off the NSW central coast if elected.
The opposition leader’s pledge to not proceed with a wind farm off the coast of the Hunter, north of Sydney, takes to three of the six wind farms proposed by the Albanese government the Coalition would abolish.
The others are off the NSW Illawarra coast and the West Australian coast. The remaining three off the Victorian and South Australian coasts are likely to be spared.
Mr Dutton made the announcement in the Labor seat of Paterson, in the Hunter Valley, where the wind farm proposal has polarised the community and which the Coalition is targeting at the next election……………………………………………………………………. more https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-axes-third-wind-farm-ahead-of-nuclear-pitch-20241205-p5kvzv
Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables
The Age , By Paul Sakkal, December 5, 2024
Key points
- Peter Dutton will reveal his costings for seven nuclear plants as soon as next week.
- They are expected to claim the opposition’s energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – will cost ‘significantly less’ than Labor’s.
- The opposition claims Labor’s renewables-led approach will cost $642 billion, while the government relies on a $122 billion figure.
Peter Dutton will claim the Coalition’s nuclear-backed grid will cost less to deliver than Labor’s renewables-led approach, escalating a war over the key cost-of-living issue ahead of next year’s federal election.
The opposition leader will reveal his costings for seven government-backed nuclear plants as soon as next week. This masthead has confirmed the Coalition will claim its energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – would cost less than Labor’s.
“It will be significantly less than Labor,” one top Liberal said of the tightly held nuclear costings. Another opposition source suggested the total cost of the Coalition’s energy system rollout would be about $500 billion. The opposition claims Labor’s plan would cost $642 billion………………………………………… https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-claim-nuclear-rollout-will-end-up-cheaper-than-renewables-20241205-p5kw09.html
Senior Netanyahu Adviser Served in Victorian Court facing Genocide Charges
Camp Sovereignty, December 6, 2024, https://theaimn.com/senior-netanyahu-adviser-served-in-victorian-court-facing-genocide-charges/
Mark Regev, former senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Australian citizen, has been served with charges of advocating genocide. The next hearing will take place at the Victorian Magistrates’ Court on 10 December 2024.
The case, initiated by Krautungalung Elder and human rights advocate Uncle Robbie Thorpe, accuses Regev of publicly endorsing actions constituting genocide during the Gaza siege. In statements broadcast on Australian media, Regev allegedly supported policies aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, including advocating for starvation. These actions, in breach of Section 80.2D of the Criminal Code Act 1995, carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
This case is a significant step forward compared to ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions involving Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as the ICC case cannot proceed until their arrests. In contrast, the prosecution of Regev is already underway.
The legal proceedings unfold against the backdrop of Australia’s shifting stance on Palestine, marked by its recent vote at the United Nations in support of a resolution demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. This marks a departure from Australia’s traditional alignment with the United States.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, this case tests Australia’s commitment to upholding justice, both locally and in the context of international accountability. With Israel invoking diplomatic immunity on Regev’s behalf, the decision to proceed with prosecution now lies with the Commonwealth and the Department of Public Prosecutions. This highlights the far-reaching implications of the case.
“This case will show whether Australia is serious about prosecuting crimes of genocide, or whether we allow our citizens to shield themselves behind bureaucracy. We have a law in place with a lower burden of proof than international law. It must be applied now to ensure accountability for actions that promote destruction and suffering” Uncle Robbie Thorpe stated.
Thorpe urges the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to take decisive action in filing an indictment against Regev. He believes this case presents an opportunity for Australia to lead in enforcing laws against genocide. “Australia has the tools, the evidence, and the obligation. Now we must act. Failure to prosecute Mark Regev for advocating genocide would be a stain on our nation’s conscience,” Uncle Robbie said.
“The charges against Mark Regev mark an important moment in the fight for accountability and justice. For far too long, leaders and officials responsible for the suffering and destruction of marginalised communities have acted with impunity. This case isn’t just about Gaza, it’s about the broader principle that no individual, no matter their position or connections, is above the law.” said Keiran Stewart-Assheton, president of the Black Peoples Union and a Traditional Owner of Wani-Wandian Country in the Yuin Nation.
If the Australian courts fail to pursue the case to its full conclusion or diplomatic immunity prevents a fair prosecution, the matter could escalate to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC holds jurisdiction over genocide and other international crimes when domestic systems are unable or unwilling to act. With Regev already served and the case progressing, this prosecution presents an opportunity to set a precedent for domestic accountability while reinforcing global justice mechanisms.
TODAY. Misplaced jubilation as UK’s old brittle nuclear reactors allowed to crack on
Joy and delight expressed by one corporate media outlet after another, as they report the announcement from (debt-laden) French nuclear company EDF that four UK nuclear power stations will be allowed to crack on, way past their use-by date.
“Crack” is the operative word here. Take for example, the Torness nuclear reactor in East Lothian – with 46 cracks in the nuclear core reported last July. It was scheduled to close in 2023.
Hunterston B, in North Ayshire is at long last to be decommissioned. In 2020 one of its reactors had an estimated 377 cracks, while the other had 209. The reactors were beginning to crumble, with cracks causing at least 58 fragments and pieces of debris to break off.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR has said that cracking could cause debris to inhibit vital cooling of highly radioactive reactor fuel. This can lead to a reactor meltdown, which can result in the escape of radioactivity to the environment.
Nobody in the prevailing establishment – corporate media, politicians, industry executives – nobody is facing up to the huge problem and huge cost of dismantling dangerous old nuclear reactors – so much better to pretend that it’s the charitable thing to just keep them going, Then it’s “jobs jobs jobs” and “community benefit” and “clean cheap energy” and “improved safety” “isn’t it wonderful” So say EDF 4th Dec 2024, the BBC, and Business Green 4th Dec 2024, and New Civil Engineer 4th Dec 2024, and Independent 3rd Dec 2024, The Herald, Lancs Live 4th Dec 2024.
Nary a word about the costs and dangers of the transport of radioactive materials, the ever-growing piles on nuclear wastes, the risks of terrorist attacks – and the completely unethical postponing of problems – just leave them for future generations to cope with.
Not nearly as much fuss was made about the world’s largest liquid air energy facility to be built at Hunterston – to store renewable energy, and provide 1000 jobs in the construction phase and 650 jobs in the local supply chain by its completion in 2030.
I try to be polite – but I empathise with Sir Jonathon Espie Porritt, 2nd Baronet, CBE who has just got so fed up with the cheerful glowing stories about prolonging the lives of decrepit nuclear reactors – “the whole deep nuclear state working away behind the scenes – as well as the UK’s astonishingly gullible media which just goes along with all this nuclear crap, year after year after year.“
Before you swallow Dutton’s nukes, look at the evidence
When it comes to a politician versus Australia’s peak scientific body about the cost of nuclear energy, I know who I’d rather believe.
So, Peter Dutton tells us that his nuclear policy will be cheaper than Labor’s renewables policy (“Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables”, December 6). I would recommend to readers the Climate Council’s myth-busting article “The seven ways the federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings”.
Some points it includes are: excluding the cost of keeping our ageing power stations open until 2038, estimated at $225 million per year for the Eraring station alone; excluding the prohibitory costs for storing nuclear waste for no less than 100,000 years and giving no consideration to the cost of continuing to burn possibly 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050, which will increase the number of climate disasters and a rise in insurance premium costs for all of us.
It also ignores the reality of cost blowouts for building a nuclear system, and the cost of transmission upgrades that are needed at the ageing power stations that they are pretending to be cost-neutral sites for their nuclear plants and are already being used for new battery, wind and solar power. Charmain Brinks, Newcastle
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that solar- and wind-produced energy is 10 times more effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear energy, which delivers far less power per dollar and is now adding as much energy in a year as renewables do in just a few days. Stanford University studies show new nuclear plants cost up to seven times as much as onshore wind or solar per kilowatt hour, and take five to 17 years to deploy. It will be interesting to compare Dutton’s estimated cost to store nuclear waste safely with the current estimated cost in Britain of £53 billion ($105 billion). Peter Nash, Fairlight
The claim that nuclear, in Australia, is cheaper than renewables is simply false. It ignores price changes over the past 20 years, whereby the cost of renewables, as predicted, has fallen by 90 per cent. Also, 2050 is 25 years away; anyone who thinks solar power will be the same 25 years from now is deluding themselves. Batteries will be much cheaper, in real terms, in 25 years’ time. Critical materials such as lithium will be in the recycling phase by then. On the other hand, since nuclear energy depends so much on the fuel cycle, it could become more expensive. Meanwhile, renewables will continue to get cheaper as transmission lines with aluminium cables improve, and get cheaper, and hydrogen-generation costs fall by a factor of 10 or more with natural gas feed. Noel Thompson, Riverview
It appears that the Coalition is pushing its nuclear power idea solely based on dubious capital cost estimates produced by a friendly associate. Nobody is considering such important issues as waste disposal, plant location with cooling water supply security or the availability of specialist labour and construction timelines. Giorgio Genocchio, Lane Cove
Rather than pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into nuclear submarines, our money would be better spent on building a national fast train network to the advantage of all Australians. The estimated cost of the submarines is $368 billion, while the estimated cost of a national fast train network is $150 billion. The days of manned submarines are limited, and nuclear subs bring with them all the attendant problems of basing, manning and maintenance – for a questionable defence benefit. The rail job should be put out to international tender. In a fair competition, China might well be the winner, as China has the world’s largest fast train network. Clive Williams, Forrest (ACT)
At $500 billion, Peter Dutton’s 2045 nuclear plan is not only late, it’s expensive. At that price, we could put $33,000 worth of batteries on each of Australia’s 15.2 million buildings and abandon the grid altogether. Sarah Hart, Gordon
When it comes to a politician versus Australia’s peak scientific body about the cost of nuclear energy, I know who I’d rather believe. Dave Horsfall, North Gosford
Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta
By Annabel Francis and Arj Ganesan, ABC North and West SA, 7 Dec 24
In short:
The select committee conducting an inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia has triggered strong opinions from both sides of the fence.
Aboriginal leaders, resident representatives, and leaders from the mining and energy sector have spoken during a hearing at Port Augusta.
What’s next?
Should the opposition win the next election, it has promised to hold a two-and-a-half year consultation period over its nuclear plans.
The federal government’s select committee inquiry into nuclear power generation at Port Augusta has stirred strong emotions among those making a submission.
For anti-nuclear activist and Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman Karina Lester, it is a debate she is tired of having.
“Governments change, committee members change … organisations, company members, CEOs of companies change,” Ms Lester said.
“Those of us that are in the frontline are constantly needing to remind governments of the impacts of nuclear in our communities.
“Aboriginal people of South Australia have always said no to nuclear.”
Ms Lester, who gave evidence at a select committee hearing in Adelaide, describes herself as a survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests.
She said Indigenous people had seen the impacts of nuclear technology first-hand.
Her father, Yami Lester, went blind at the age of 16 following British weapons testing in Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s.
Ms Lester said she feared Indigenous groups would suffer if the federal opposition’s nuclear plans went ahead.
“Aboriginal communities are always the solution or pressured to be the solution for the waste issues,” she said.
“The history shows us that locations identified are locations that are First Nations or Aboriginal people’s traditional lands.”
Port Augusta’s former coal power station was one of seven sites that was earmarked as a possible location for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.
The Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the proposed site, has voiced strong opposition to any nuclear proposal.
“Aboriginal people throughout the region and state of South Australia have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste,” a spokesperson said.
Greg Bannon from the Flinders Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Port Augusta about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.
He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed. “I think it’s old technology, and I don’t think we need it,” he said.
Mr Bannon said any accident or error would not only have a devastating impact on the local community but also on vulnerable marine ecologies, such as the giant Australian cuttlefish that aggregates about 50 kilometres away from Port Augusta……………………………https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/nuclear-energy-hearing-emotional-port-augusta/104694596
Baseload power generators not needed to guarantee supply, say science and engineering academies
Sören Amelang, Dec 5, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/baseload-power-generators-not-needed-to-guarantee-supply-say-science-and-engineering-academies/
An energy system dominated by solar and wind energy does not require baseload power stations to guarantee supply security, German research academies have said.
“The academy project ‘Energy Systems of the Future’ (ESYS) has concluded that a secure energy supply is also possible without baseload power plants,” said the National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech), the German National Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina), and the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities.
Baseload power plants supply electricity continuously, whereas so-called residual load plants run only intermittently when needed.
“A combination of solar and wind energy with storage, a flexible hydrogen system, flexible electricity demand and residual load power plants will be necessary for a climate-friendly and reliable electricity supply,” the academies said.
The German government plans to use hydrogen-fuelled gas turbine plants to back up its renewables-based future electricity system.
The researchers modelled the potential of four baseload technologies: nuclear power plants, geothermal energy, natural gas power plants with CO2 capture, and nuclear fusion power plants.
Their results showed that baseload plants could become part of future energy systems if they save costs – a scenario the scientists consider unlikely. Baseload plants’ greatest impact on the overall system is that their surplus electricity could be used to run electrolysers, which would turn electricity into hydrogen, they said.
“For baseload power plants to lead to a substantial cost reduction, their costs would have to fall significantly below the level forecast today,” said Karen Pittel, who heads the ifo Institute’s Center for Energy, Climate and Resources, and is also deputy chair of the ESYS board of directors.
“In fact, we estimate that the risks of cost increases and delays in baseload technologies tend to be even higher than with the further expansion of solar and wind energy.”
Nuclear energy debate draws stark gender split in Australia ahead of next year’s election.
Lisa Cox, 5 Dec 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/04/nuclear-energy-debate-draws-stark-gender-split-in-australia-ahead-of-next-years-election
Survey finds 25 percentage point gender gap across all age brackets on whether nuclear power would be positive for the country, with majority of men saying it would.
New data points to a stark gender split in attitudes towards nuclear energy, with women much more likely to say they don’t support it or think the risks are too great.
Research company DemosAu surveyed 6,000 people on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation and found 26% of women thought nuclear energy would be good for Australia, compared with 51% of men.
DemosAu head of research, George Hasanakos, said the 25 percentage point gender gap was “the sharpest divide in attitudes between men and women” that the research firm had seen on any issue.
The polling found the split was pronounced regardless of the age of the people surveyed, with young men and women just as divided as those from older generations.
While 51% of men agreed nuclear energy would be good for Australia, that support dropped when asked if they would be happy to live near a nuclear plant.
A reported 38% of men agreed they would support a nuclear plant being located close to their city, with 44% disagreeing and 18% neutral. Among women, just 18% agreed they would be happy to have a nuclear plant near their city, with 63% disagreeing and 19% neutral.
“Men support nuclear much more than women,” the ACF chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy, said.
“But as soon as you ask men more details such as ‘Would you be happy to live next door to a plant?’ or ‘Do you think one will be built within the next decade?’ – that level of support really comes down.”
The report found female respondents were more likely to answer “neutral” compared with male respondents. It identified this as both “a risk and opportunity for campaigners on both sides of the issue” as Australia approaches a federal election but said pro-nuclear campaigners would have to contend with widely held safety concerns about nuclear among women.
On the subject of transporting nuclear waste, the poll found 57% of women and 43% of men said it wasn’t worth the risk.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said the next election will be a referendum on nuclear power.
The Coalition has proposed seven sites where it says it would eventually replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants but not how much this would cost. The government has rejected the idea and the federal House of Representatives is conducting an inquiry into the consideration of nuclear power in Australia.
Multiple energy analysts have argued nuclear energy would be more expensive than other options and a nuclear industry would not be possible in Australia until after 2040.
O’Shanassy said among the report’s more interesting findings was that despite the gender gap on many aspects of nuclear, men and women were aligned in the view that renewables were cheaper.
A reported 47% of men agreed renewables would deliver cheaper energy, compared with 31% who disagreed (with 22% neutral).
While 47% of women also agreed renewables would deliver cheaper energy, 20% disagreed and 33% were neutral.
In separate data, the climate advocacy organisation 1 Million Women surveyed an additional 3,351 women among its own supporters and found 93% were concerned about nuclear.
“Nuclear energy is a distraction to meaningful climate solutions and women don’t have the time or patience to entertain the Coalition’s proposal,” its founder, Natalie Isaacs, said.
Peter Dutton cops backlash over push to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia
Opposition wants nuclear power plants over Anthony Albanese’s renewables
Daily Mail 4th Dec 2024, By BRETT LACKEY FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
Aussies have hit back at plans to build nuclear power stations in the country as the Coalition ramps up its push to establish seven sites as part of its election promise.
Parliament’s House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy is investigating the proposal and is travelling around the country hearing views from local communities.
At a meeting in Traralgon in Victoria’s Gippsland region on Tuesday angry locals fired up at the plan, which would see one of the new nuclear plants built at the currently winding down Loy Yang coal plant just 10 minutes out of town.
The other six locations Peter Dutton has outlined for nuclear plants are at the coal plant sites of Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in SA and Muja in WA.
‘We do not need nuclear in Australia. We need to be pushing more renewable energy and the technology will develop more and more as we go to keep the lights on,’ president of community group Voices of the Valley, Wendy Farmer, told the meeting.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien, also the committee’s deputy chair, asked if it was ‘just a no’ from Ms Farmer or if she was interested in studying whether nuclear could be a safe and effective form of electricity.
‘The Coalition have told us that they would consult with us for two and a half years but then they would go ahead with nuclear, whether we wanted it or not and our community would have no rights of veto,’ Ms Farmer fired back.
‘How can we trust the Coalition to have an independent study when you say proposal but where’s the proposal?’
Darren McCubbin, the CEO of Gippsland Climate Change Network, got a standing ovation when he told the meeting renewables were ‘ready to go’ while nuclear power stations would require years of consultations and reports.
‘I’d like to congratulate Mr O’Brien for recognising that we don’t have the science, that we need a work plan, that we need two and a half years of consultation,’ Mr McCubbin said.
‘Good on him for coming here and saying we don’t know the answers and we need to find them because they don’t have the answers.’
Mr McCubbin pointed to the 2GW of Victorian offshore wind power projects slated to be online by 2032, which would increase to 5GW by 2035.
Look right now we’ve got a stream towards renewables, we’ve got targets in place. We’ve got an industry waiting to go, we’ve got people coming from all over the world looking in Gippsland and saying we have a way of transitioning out [of coal-fired electricity].
‘We’ve got the science, we’ve got the community [support]. We’ve had Star of the South [wind farm project] here for five years doing community consultation and I appreciate that you recognise you haven’t done that.
‘So we’re ready to go and putting things off for two and a half years to have work plan after work plan and work plan is not a solution for jobs and growth within our region.’
A recent Demos AU poll of 6709 adults between July 2 and November 24 found that 26 per cent of women said nuclear would be good for Australia, compared with 51 per cent of men.
But only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear plant.
Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of women said they don’t want to live near a nuclear plant and more than half (57 per cent) said transporting radioactive waste isn’t worth the risk.
The report card follows polling by Farmers For Climate Action that found 70 per cent of rural Australians support clean energy projects on farmland in their local areas and 17 per cent were opposed.
That support came with conditions, including proper consultation and better access to reliable energy.
Sanne de Swart, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Free Campaign with Friends of the Earth Melbourne, claimed nuclear electricity would ‘increase power bills, increase taxes and increase climate pollution’.
The independent Climate Council said it was concerned the coalition was relying on one private sector ‘base case‘ for nuclear costings rather than expert advice such as from the Australian Energy Market Operator.
‘What’s crucial is that any new investment is made at the least cost to Australian consumers,’ a council spokesperson said. ‘Only renewables – solar, wind, hydro – together with energy storage is capable of delivering on this, and it’s being built right now,’ the council said.
Minister for Climate Change Chris Bowen recently took a swipe at Peter Dutton and the Coalition’s nuclear proposal saying that it would take too long to get the plants up and running.
‘Net zero by 2050 is not optional. Which means the critical decade is now.’
With six years to go to reach the legislated target of a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, he said the nation was on track to meet it and to make 82 per cent renewable electricity in the national grid by 2030.
On Wednesday the House Select Committee was told legal requirements to make the former coal sites safe to build nuclear reactors will take decades of rehabilitation before they can be used.
‘We’re talking significant periods of time of two or three decades,’ Victoria’s Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority chief executive Jen Brereton said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14154479/Australia-nuclear-power-plant-locations-backlash.html
TODAY. Surprise ! surprise! – the nuclear lobby has co-opted an ex-politician with a dubious history – Tony Blair
Ross Clark, writing in The Spectator, bemoans the fact that the Tony Blair Institute, as it touts nuclear power, dismisses the problems of safety and costs. Tom Pashby, writing in The New Civil Engineer, goes further in criticism, looking more deeply at the problems that Blair ignores: nuclear’s poor performance in comparison with renewables, and the shady pressure of industry-dominated think tanks, and the military lobby.
For a shady industry dominated think tank – you couldn’t find a better example than the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI). Tony Blair set up the TBI in 2017. Its purpose – “to help governments and leaders make their vision for development a reality. Providing analysis, commentary and lessons from their work with governments in fragile, developing and emerging states” It started out as a general do-gooder think tank, with a strong religious slant. It is a non-profit, and Blair does not receive a salary, but its analysts are paid for their work.
Over time, Blair and his Institute have been been accused of profiting from business and consultancy roles, and of conflicts of interest. The Tony Blair Institute confirmed that it had received donations from the U.S. State Department and Saudi Arabia. In 2024, the Tony Blair Institute provided paid work for the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan when Azerbaijan hosted the COP29 Climate conference. There is a remarkable lack of transparency about Blair’s earnings from his own consultancy and speaking roles.
Even when Prime Minister, Blair was already helping BAE weapons corporation to make lucrative deals with corrupt regimes in Egypt. Later, as Peace Envoy, Blair made much money bolstering business opportunities with Egypt and other repressive regimes, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kazakhstan, Kuwait Colombia . Blair came to:
“epitomise the corruption at the heart of British public life. That’s not to say he’s done anything illegal. And it’s not just about the vast income, the seven houses, the £2m retainer with JP Morgan or the trading of influence and advocacy with corrupt authoritarian governments – all based on the contacts he built up as an elected British political leader.“
That was all over 10 years ago. Fast forward to now, and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) has become something much more influential and dangerous. Kiran Stacey, writing in The Guardian writes:
“the former prime minister has arguably become more powerful thanks to the work of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), which has exploded in size and revenue during the last few years. Its accounts show it made over $81m (£65m) in revenue in 2021, a 78% increase on the previous year.”
“This is an organisation bankrolled by billionaires, which continues to advise and take money from the murderous Saudi government. What’s worse, its solutions reflect these corporate interests“
Tony Blair has become far more powerful now, than he was as Prime Minister. He is keen for the TBI to expand its interests to many more countries. Blair is known to have a strong influence on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
And guess what – Blair – with his enthusiasm for new technology, is besties with Elon Musk – surely a good step for Blair, to get in good with President Trump – great for his Institute and for the global nuclear lobby!
The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
December 5, 2024, The AIM Network, Climate Council, https://theaimn.com/the-seven-ways-the-federal-coalition-could-cook-the-books-on-nuclear-costings/
Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.
The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.”
The Climate Council has identified five furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings:
1) Comparing apples with oranges: We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “It’s alarming to see the Federal Coalition knowingly compare costs that are for totally different things. If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.”
2) Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.
3) Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste:Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.”
-Advertisement-
4) Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.
5) Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential. The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.
6) Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.”
7) Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
“Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.”
Women strongly opposed to nuclear power, just one in three men willing to live near a plant
Marion Rae, Dec 4, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/women-strongly-opposed-to-nuclear-power-just-one-in-three-men-want-to-live-near-one/
Women are strongly opposed to nuclear energy and are most concerned any consideration of the controversial power source will delay the switch to renewables, polling shows.
A national survey released on Wednesday to coincide with a federal inquiry found a stark gender divide, with a mere 26 per cent of women saying nuclear would be good for Australia, compared with 51 per cent of men.
But only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear plant.
Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of women said they do not want to live near a nuclear plant and more than half (57 per cent) do not think transporting radioactive waste is worth the risk.
The DemosAU poll of 6709 adults between July 2 and November 24 also found a higher percentage of men (42 per cent) said they were concerned about the safety of the technology than those who were not concerned.
A women’s climate change movement, 1 Million Women, surveyed an additional 3351 women and found 93 per cent of its supporters were concerned about nuclear energy, with the top-ranked concern its potential to derail the rollout of renewable energy.
The findings come as a federal inquiry into nuclear power generation is scheduled to hold a public hearing in Melbourne with industry, health and climate witnesses listed to speak.
Community leaders, unions and grassroots organisations plan to gather outside to declare “our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive”.
“Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien is the ultimate triple threat of energy politics: his nuclear plan will increase power bills, increase taxes and increase climate pollution,” said Sanne de Swart, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Free Campaign with Friends of the Earth Melbourne.
Mr O’Brien said on Tuesday only the coalition was committed to delivering “cheap, clean and consistent energy” to all Australians.
“We need a coalition government elected to build nuclear power plants and get more gas into the market to provide cheaper and consistent energy for all Australians,” he said.
The opposition is readying to fight for nuclear energy at the next federal election, with plans to build reactors at seven sites across Australia but no details as yet on how they will be paid for.
The independent Climate Council said it was concerned the coalition was relying on one private sector “base case” rather than expert costings on nuclear power from bodies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator.
The industry’s Clean Energy Council said it would confuse policy makers and confound the public’s understanding of the cost of replacing ageing energy infrastructure.
“Ultimately what’s crucial is that any new investment is made at the least cost to Australian consumers,” a council spokesperson told AAP.
“Only renewable energy – solar, wind, hydro – together with energy storage, is capable of delivering on this – and it’s being built right now,” the council said.
Nuclear powered universities – the latest bright idea from Barnaby’s people
Murray Hogarth, 2 December 2024, https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/nuclear-powered-universities-the-latest-bright-idea-from-barnabys-people/
It’s common knowledge that Australia’s university sector is facing challenging times, but who knew installing nuclear reactors on campuses might be part of the future fix?
At least, that’s what the local anti-renewables, pro-nuclear campaign group in National Party maverick Barnaby Joyce’s home electorate of New England in north-eastern NSW is proposing.
Joyce, a former Deputy Prime Minister and current opposition frontbencher, is a leading voice in the self-styled “bush rebellion” against so-called “reckless renewables”, and a prominent political champion for Australia embracing nuclear energy.
He campaigns very actively on his own territory, but also roves further afield, even venturing into metropolitan Sydney, most recently at an anti-renewables, pro-nuclear forum in Labor Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s own electorate of McMahon.
His local ginger group, Responsible Energy Development for New England (RED4NE), has pitched this novel idea for regional universities in its submission to the current House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy.
It focuses on the University of New England, which is headquartered in the region’s largest urban centre, Armidale, and cites rising power demand for AI at all universities as a key driver for its nuclear notion based on next-generation Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs.
Just wait for the fallout from the university’s students and academics, and the local Armidale community’s not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) brigade, if this gains any credence.
Although that said, given that no SMRs have been developed commercially anywhere in the OECD – as a number of the now over 340 submissions to the inquiry make clear, with only a couple of completed examples of SMRs in the world, in Russia and China – it may be a very long time before the good burghers of Armidale will need to get too worked up.
In its inquiry submission, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) confirms SMRs may power discreet use cases such as data centres and mining sites in the future, but describes the technology as still being in its “infancy”.
It says: “ATSE’s report on SMRs concluded that commercial releases in other OECD countries could be possible by the late 2030s to mid-2040s, with a mature market emerging by the late 2040s.”
Power-hungry universities growing their AI will need a lot of electricity well before then.
Such a proposition totally ignores the Liberal-National coalition pledge, should it win the national elections due within six months, to restrict its planned nuclear reactor developments to just seven already-named locations on old coal-fired power station sites across five states.
None of these seven sites are in the New England region, with the nearest being Muswellbrook in the adjoining Hunter Valley region, and currently the Coalition’s still poorly-defined and uncosted nuclear policy only specifies SMRs being built at sites in South Australia and Western Australia.
Under the heading “Deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) for New England Tablelands”, the RED4NE submission to the parliamentary inquiry says: “Even though renewable energy sources have a role to play in Australia’s energy mix, nuclear power, particularly through the deployment of SMRs, offers a compelling alternative for the New England Tablelands region.”
It then gets more specific, with a subheading “High energy needs of AI for Universities”, proposing that: “One of the most compelling uses would be the installation of SMRs for high energy users such as the University of New England (UNE) in Armidale.
“As Universities in general move to using more Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, their need for power increases exponentially. New version SMRs do not require the vast quantities of water inherent in older models. As such, SMRs would be of vital importance for the continuing competitiveness for regional universities such as UNE.”
The New England Region is one of the NSW government’s five designated Renewable Energy Zones (REZ’s), which are earmarked for large-scale solar, wind and storage developments connected to high-demand areas of the electricity grid by transmission lines.
RED4NE’s submission mirrors most of the nuclear lobby’s standard arguments, concluding that: “When considering the alternatives, nuclear is more reliable, less destructive to communities and ecosystems, cheaper, and has longer lifespan. We urge you to consider seriously the positive benefits of nuclear power generation for Australia to avoid unnecessary violation of such beautiful rural communities such as the New England Tablelands.”
The submission also makes clear that RED4NE is collaborating with one of the pro-nuke brigade’s favourite “environmentalists”, wildlife photographer turned anti large-scale renewables campaigner Steven Nowakowski. He has helped them to produce a cumulative impact “panascope” of the wind, solar and battery developments, including transmission line and road infrastructures, proposed for the New England REZ.
Nowakowski was a guest speaker at a RED4NE-hosted community forum in Armidale on 3October, addressing landholders and other local residents on the topic: “Is the New England REZ broken?”
Other pro-nuclear speakers promoted for the forum included Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) Energy Director Aiden Morrison and Nuclear for Climate Australia founder Robert Parker, who, like Nowakowski, are regulars at similar events being held across regional Australia.
Of course, Barnaby Joyce is a regular too, frequently honing his arguments against the renewables-led energy transition – which he decries as the Labor government’s “cult-like attachment to intermittent power” – with his own constituents.
On the morning of the RED4NE forum, Joyce told his Facebook followers: “Tonight I am in Armidale with yet another gathering of standing room only of every political persuasion with one thing in common. We have been misled, ripped off and lied to. This is a social, environmental and energy train wreck of monumental proportions.”
It’s going to be a wild and wacky ride as the renewables versus nuclear, Labor versus coalition contest rages right up to election day.
TODAY. Fantasies for 2025 – perhaps the nuclear one tops the list?
I mean – there’s a lot of competition for this title – top fantasy. There’s the fantastic possibility that all will go well with Donald Trump in power in the USA. That’s a big one seeing that we have a narcissisitic sociopath at the top, appointing a bunch of other narcissistic sociopaths, all of whom are singularly unsuited to their jobs, and who probably don’t trust each other, and certainly don’t trust Trump.
There’s the fantasy that the ruling Great Powers are actually going to do anything real about reducing fossil fuel emissions, or really helping the indigenous peoples who are most affeced by global heating.
Then there’s the plastic one. The same Great Powers are happy to allow those same fossil fuel companies to churn out plastic, while they make pious motherhood statements about the fantasy of “recycling” and somehow or other “disposing” of plastic wastes. They’d love to have all that toxic crap dumped on poor indigenous people too. But – at least, there’s a certain democracy about plastic wastes – as teensy weensy bits of plastic are in every organ of our bodies now, including the brain.
Still, I’m backing the nuclear industry fantasy to trump Trump and climate and plastic pollution for the fantasy of the year.
As to public realisation of these fantasies – there is a general uneasiness about the coming Trump administration.
And across the world 87% of people know that climate change is real, and are concerned about it. Public awareness of plastic pollution is growing too, especially in the USA. But the public are still using the fossil fuel products – and in order to cope with global heating, are turning on air-conditioners fuelled by fossil fuels. People are aware, but they don’t know how to stop it. So the corporate polluters are happy.
But nuclear power had a bad name, over previous decades. It really has been a huge challenge for this industry to turn all that around, to keep their profits thriving , and to have nuclear portrayed as a public good.
The well-paid minions of the nuclear industry have done an excellent job in conning the public, world-wide. They had to work hard to overcome nuclear’s history of accidents, bungles, and failed projects, not to mention how it has proliferated weapons of mass destruction.
Then, from strenuously not believing in Climate Change, the nuke lobby did a flip – with the inspired realisation that they could pretend that Nuclear Power is the Cure for Climate Change.
Well, it’s not the cure for climate change -nor for energy shortage, and it’s not “cheap” nor “clean”.
But the industry faces other huge problems, too. Nuclear publicists studiously avoid the topic of the cost of shutting down, and pulling down, nuclear reactors and then dealing with the toxic wastes. It’s supposed to be cheaper and better to “extend the lives” of crappy old nuclear reactors with their embrittled and cracked pipes. I think that the well-paid engineers, executives, politicians, trade union leaders, and media nuclear “experts” are all figuring that it’d be better if the “decommissioning” were to take place conveniently, long after their own retirement or death.
So the expensive horror of dealing with the tail end of the nuclear industry is a topic not to be discussed. Nor is the horror of nuclear war – with its weapons provided by the nuclear industry -and promoted by the ever-more profitable arms manufacturers. The “peaceful commercial nuclear industry is an essential part of this.
So – what is acceptable to discuss?
Well, it’s the “energy miracle” of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” (SMRs). “Start-ups” for SMRs popping up all over the place (though some of them are quietly closing). The whole idea is that these, so far mythical, beasts will be commercially viable. However, Governments have always propped nuclear ventures up well, with various subsidies and tax exemptions. China and Russia solved the problem, with government ownership of the industry. France did too, though that’s not working too well. Now the British Labour government has “Great British Nuclear” set up as a government run venture- (by a conservative party that’s supposed to hate socialism.)
So – in a clearly non-commercially-viable venture, the tax-payer is to save the day.
Paul Brown sets out the whole sorry story, in particular for the UK. He explains the work of two pesky academics Prof. Stephen Thomas and Prof. Andy Blowers and their report – “It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all.” The costs and delays of the Hinkley Point C big nuclear project, the planned Sizewell one, the £20 billion plan for unbuilt, untested SMRs – these are exposed, and make the pro-nuclear propaganda look absurd.
Yet the propaganda goes on. The big names in nuclear – Rafael Grossi, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos keep right on, maintaining the fallacy that all is well with the global nuclear industry, – and their sycophants in politics and media rebleat their message.
Thank you, Paul Brown, for explaining this so succinctly – if only the facts could be clearly set out in the mainstream media – and the public would not swallow the Kool-Aid. But of course, it won’t be, – the fantasy will prevail – until the shit finally hits the fan.
Australian nuclear news 2 – 9th December
Headlines as they come in:
- The question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector.
- Nuclear energy questioned again as new CSIRO report finds it will push up power prices
- CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables.
- If you don’t know, vote no on nuclear
- Policy bum Dutton has two big ideas. They’re both in bad trouble.
- Renewable energy trounces nuclear on generation costs.
- ‘Nothing to see here’ says Australia as third Thales corruption case starts globally.
- Dutton axes third wind farm ahead of nuclear pitch
- Before you swallow Dutton’s nukes, look at the evidence.
- Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables
- Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta
- Nuclear energy debate draws stark gender split in Australia ahead of next year’s election.
- The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
- Peter Dutton cops backlash over push to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia.
- Women strongly opposed to nuclear power, just one in three men willing to live near a plant
- ‘Living next door to radioactive waste’: Latrobe Valley residents to rally against Coalition’s nuclear plan.
- Nuclear powered universities – the latest bright idea from Barnaby’s people.
- A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 