The price of nuclear in a cost of living crisis – media briefing
October 25, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/the-price-of-nuclear-in-a-cost-of-living-crisis-media-briefing/#google_vignette
The Climate Council
Australians are being told to look to the Canadian province of Ontario as a case study for why we should embrace nuclear energy. But is Ontario’s nuclear experience really the success story it’s made out to be? Join us on Monday, October 28 at 10:00 AM AEST (join HERE) for a critical briefing where an expert from Ontario will fact-check these claims and provide an analysis of the comparative costs of nuclear, gas, and renewables.
With a federal committee on Nuclear Energy now underway, and a cost-of-living federal election approaching, this briefing – hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council – will focus on the costs and timelines of alternative energy options for Australia.
Our panel of respected experts will cover topics such as:
- Is nuclear energy in Ontario really providing cheap and clean power as Peter Dutton claims?
- The long-term costs of maintaining nuclear reactors
- Comparing the cost of new nuclear infrastructure with renewable alternatives
- How energy choices will impact household bills and cost of living
Speakers:
- Prof. Mark Winfield, York University (Canada) – academic and author specialising in energy and environment
- Dylan McConnell, Energy Analyst
- Nicki Hutley, Economist and Climate Councillor
The briefing will be held on Monday, October 28th at 10:00 AM AEST. You can join by clicking this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82731815067?pwd=sDJwgpUT8GfwMohXPbGdHTu9i9TK5w.1
We look forward to seeing you there.
The Climate Council is Australia’s leading community-funded climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.
For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au
Or follow us on social media: facebook.com/climatecouncil and twitter.com/climatecouncil
Fighting for More Evidence of Assange’s Political Prosecution
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has been in court trying to get some missing emails — or data about them — that could further expose the political motivation behind the prosecution of the WikiLeaks publisher.
Joe Lauria and Mohamed Elmaazi / Consortium News, October 23, 2024
A tribunal in Britain is set to decide whether to order the government’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prove it deleted emails that may have covered up more evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Julian Assange.
The three judges heard arguments on Sept. 24 in the nearly decade-long freedom of information saga regarding the emails that top British prosecutors say were deleted.
They involved an exchange with Sweden during a Swedish prosecutor’s attempt, beginning in 2010, to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher from Britain. ……………………………………………………….
It was only when the U.S. realized it would lose on appeal after a four-year extradition battle that the Department of Justice cut a plea deal with Assange who was released on June 24 and returned to his native Australia.
Assange had been charged in the United States under the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes.
Britain took an active role in Assange’s prosecution. Its Crown Prosecution Service sought to stop Sweden from going to the embassy to question him.
Seeking to learn more about Britain’s role against Assange, Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi first made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2015 for all emails between the British and Swedish governments concerning Assange.
Some of the emails she obtained showed political motivation on the part of the lead British prosecutor, Paul Close. One email Maurizi obtained from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) revealed that Close appeared to be pressuring Swedish prosecutors to continue seeking Assange’s extradition instead of dropping the case or questioning him at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum………………………….
After Maurizi noticed a sizeable gap in the emails released to her she filed another FIOA seeking to obtain the missing emails.
The CPS first claimed that it had destroyed the emails. It said that when Close retired, his account along with his emails, were automatically destroyed.
But Maurizi did not buy it. She asked the court at the hearing last month to order the CPS to turn over “metadata” — data about data, such as file creation and modification dates, email sender and recipient addresses, timestamps, email routing information, keywords, and subject lines — proving the emails really were deleted and when.
“We have NO certainty whatsoever” that the emails were destroyed, Maurizi wrote in a message to Consortium News. Maurizi is in court because she believes the allegedly deleted emails could provide additional evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Assange.
……………………………………………‘When, How & Why’ Were the Emails Deleted?
Maurizi, who travelled to London from Rome to attend the Sept. 24 hearing at the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), is challenging the ongoing failure of the CPS to respond adequately to her December 2019 FOIA about the missing emails.
………………………………………………………………….Maurizi is betting the tribunal will agree with her that metadata is clearly information that can be requested under the Act and which can clearly be provided with little difficulty. If she succeeds, future FOIA requests will also be able to demand metadata if and when an individual thinks it may be useful.
Hillary, who was called to testify for the CPS, freely admitted to the tribunal that she could easily provide the metadata Maurizi requested and that she would be happy to do so, as long as any information which identified individuals is redacted.
The tribunal will also consider whether to “order the CPS to carry out a proper, full search for information held” as to “when, how and why?” the thousands of emails were allegedly deleted while Assange’s Swedish extradition case was still very much active.
No date has yet been set for the announcement of the tribunal’s decision. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/10/23/fighting-for-more-evidence-of-assanges-political-prosecution/
Nuclear lobby on track to sabotage COP29
By Noel Wauchope | 24 October 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/nuclear-lobby-on-track-to-sabotage-cop29,19101
The nuclear lobby is on track to sabotage the COP29 UN Climate Change Conference next month in Azerbaijan — lobbying governments for support and investors for money, writes Noel Wauchope.
IT’S NOT SO LONG AGO that the global nuclear energy lobby used to deny the threat of climate change. Even as recently as 2020, a leading nuclear propagandist, Michael Shellenger, was downplaying climate change, while trashing renewable energy.
But that’s changed.
In the face of public anxieties about nuclear health and safety dangers – and above all, of nuclear costs – the propagandists desperately needed a new shtick.
The answer was — nuclear power to beat climate change!
COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023 — the global nuclear lobby trumpeted its “success”
But, in reality, only a tiny minority at COP28 agreed that nuclear power was needed to address global warming.
198 Parties (197 countries plus the European Union) attended this climate summit in Dubai in 2023. Only 22 agreed to the pro-nuclear declaration proposed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron — the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero.
And, 31 countries that do have nuclear power — why didn’t Russia and China sign up?
Thirteen other countries that have key nuclear programs were also missing from the declaration — five in Europe (Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain), two in South Asia (India and Pakistan) three in the Americas (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico), South Africa (the only nuclear energy producer in Africa), and Iran.
COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference November 2024, Baku, Azerbaijan
The global nuclear lobby is much better organised now — and will try again.
It’s well to keep in mind that the United Nations is beholden to the nuclear industry.
On 28th May 1959, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – not yet two years old! – and The World Health Organisation (WHO) signed an agreement referred to as WHA 12-40. Though, it might, on paper, appear balanced and reciprocal, in practice the WHA 12-40 puts WHO in a subordinate position to the IAEA.
So, the United Nations (UN) is tethered to the nuclear industry. The IAEA is part of the UN system — and its brief is to promote the “peaceful” nuclear industry.
COP29 is all about the money
So, the global nuclear push is well prepared with the recent release of an IAEA report on Climate Change and Nuclear Power focussing on the need for investment.
‘The 2024 edition of the IAEA’s Climate Change and Nuclear Power report has been released, highlighting the need for a significant increase in investment to achieve goals for expanding nuclear power.’
According to the report, global investment in nuclear energy must increase to USD$125 billion annually – up from the around USD$50 billion invested each year from 2017-2023 – to meet the IAEA’s high case projection for nuclear capacity in 2050.
The more aspirational goal of tripling capacity – which more than 20 countries pledged to work towards at COP28 last year – would require upwards of USD$150 billion in annual investment.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said:
“Across its near century-long lifetime, a nuclear power plant is affordable and cost-competitive. Financing the upfront costs can be a challenge however, especially in market-driven economies and developing countries, ….the private sector will increasingly need to contribute to financing, but so too will other institutions. The IAEA is engaging multilateral development banks to highlight their potential role in making sure that developing countries have more and better financing options when it comes to investing in nuclear energy.”
The new report also examines ways to unlock private-sector finance — a topic that is gaining increasing attention worldwide.
Last month, 14 major financial institutions including some of the world’s largest banks came together during a New York Climate Week event to signal a willingness to help finance nuclear newbuild projects.
On the sidelines of Climate Week in New York City, major banks, government representatives and industry executives met at the Financing the Tripling of Nuclear Energy Leadership Event.
Note that this event was sponsored by the IAEA and the Clean Energy Ministerial’s (CEM) Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE) initiative. The CEM’s role is to run forums for propagandising the nuclear industry.
The IAEA report continues:
‘Nuclear power’s inclusion in sustainable financing frameworks, including the European Union (EU) taxonomy for sustainable activities, is having a tangible impact. In the EU, the first green bonds have been issued for nuclear power in Finland and France in 2023. Electricité de France (EDF) was one of the first recipients, with the award of €4 billion in green bonds and around €7 billion in green loans between 2022 and 2024.’
The report makes the case for policy reform and international partnerships to help bridge the financing gap and accelerate nuclear power expansion into emerging markets and developing economies — including for small modular reactors.
What does this mean for COP29?
Well, despite the IAEA hype, the nuclear push at COP28 was a bit of a flop.
Forcefully led by France, which is stuck with its unfortunate situation of nuclear monopoly on its energy system. The pro-nuclear declaration was not a global success.
The aim then was to get governments to promote the industry. And, that’s still the aim, despite the pleas for private investment.
But the two go together – lobbying governments to weaken safety regulations, assume the financial risk and provide tax breaks and incentives – while simultaneously encouraging investors about government support.
Ideally, like France, governments could nationalise the nuclear industry. After all, the taxpayer is the most reliable customer.
Sustainability campaigner and author, Jonathon Porritt, predicts COP 29 will be:
‘Baku will be worse than Dubai – as the capital of an even more corrupt, even more misogynistic, and more autocratic petrostate than the UEA.’
The polluting industries will be there in force to counter any real action — as they did in 2023.
In a happy partnership with them will be Rafael Grossi and his nuclear crew.
The much-touted nuclear resurgence – if it happens at all – will be so long coming that it will be irrelevant to the galloping global heating.
Meanwhile, the nuclear push will enable coal, oil and gas to rocket on — while investment in renewable energy will be stymied.
Climate is the big argument. That is for now.
If they win world acceptance that financing nuclear power is essential for climate action, the nuclear lobby can then go on to erase other lingering concerns — on health, safety, wastes, weapons proliferation, indigenous rights.
The world media has dutifully regurgitated the promotion of those mythical beasts — the small nuclear reactors (SMRs).
The digital age – so far – has enabled such myths to be widely promoted and widely accepted.
Ever-increasing AI is becoming accepted as essential — along with its ever-increasing lust for electricity.
I see the global belief in “nuclear for climate” as the first of many global successes in perpetrating lies.
TODAY. Behind the really nasty “NICE” nuclear energy push to control the November COP Climate Change Conference
Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
The billionaires and other manipulators have been planning this for years
Their goal is to direct United Nations policy, and the finances for climate action, towards the nuclear industry . Their motives are mixed, but MONEY is the big one.
The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, more commonly known as COP29, will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan from 11 to 22 November, 2024.
The nuclear push is led by a relatively small phalanx of wealthy, powerful individuals – not many in number, compared to the many thousands of people who have qualms about the nuclear lobby running the show at Azerbaijan . But of course, the nuke lobby will be helped along by the fossil fuel giants. If nuclear is accepted as the cure for climate change, there will be a delay of decades for nuclear power to get going again – which means that oil, gas, coal will have full sway.
Nuclear and fossil fuel energies are partners in this crime against our planet.
Even at the 2015 COP Paris Climate Agreement, nuclear ‘influencers’ like Ernest Moniz and Bill Gates were touting the plan – nuclear as the cheap way to fund climate action. A plan quickly taken up by Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg – forming the Breakthrough Institute
Now it was time to really go for the tax-payers’ money, as Bill Gates launched Mission Innovation – to “increase government support” for new generation nuclear technologies. Mission Innovation involves 24 national governments, including the USA, Canada, China and India, the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank.
Joyce Nelson has outlined the development of this “nuclear for climate” push, kicking off the new enthusiasm for small nuclear reactors, especially in Canada, around 2018. No surprise that the scandal-ridden company SNC-Lavalin jumped onto this bandwagon, forming a consortium the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA)
By 2018, Gates was launching Breakthrough Energy Europe, a collaboration with the European Commission. In 1919 Canada hosted the Clean Energy Ministerial/Mission Innovation summit launching NICE -the “Nuclear Innovation Clean Energy Future”
M.V. Ramana warned in advance of the summit, “Note to Ministers from 25 countries: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
I doubt that the COP 29 summit has any credibility with intelligent people. Held in Azerbaijan, one of the world’s worst petrochemical autocracies, this supposed climate action meeting will be one blatant front for the fossil fuel lobby, as well as the nuclear one.
Sad to have the United Nations sponsoring this pack of liars.
Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
Government agencies and departmental officials spend full day scrutinising Peter Dutton’s controversial plan to build seven nuclear power plants.
Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, 24 Oct 24
A senior government nuclear safety official says the sites of coal-fired power plants “might not be adequate” to house the opposition’s proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors.
Government agencies and departmental officials were grilled in parliament on Wednesday at a government-backed inquiry into nuclear energy. The inquiry was tasked with scrutinising the Coalition’s controversial plan to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear power and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites.
Several officials told the inquiry it would take at least 10 to 15 years to start generating nuclear power once a future government confirmed an intention to build reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has said the Coalition expects to be able to build a small reactor by 2035 or a larger reactor as early as 2037.
The Coalition has said putting reactors at the sites of coal-fired power stations would reduce the need to build expensive transmission lines and towers to connect renewables to the grid.
At Wednesday’s inquiry, the Nationals MP Darren Chester asked the chief regulatory officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Jim Scott, if that approach could save time.
Scott said it likely would, but added that this “presupposes that the sites of current coal-fired plants would be adequate for nuclear sites, because that might not be the case”.
He said: “You have to look at external events – flooding, natural events – that could occur. That’s part of the siting process. Given that, the potential issue [is] that the sites of current coal-fired plants might not be adequate for nuclear plants.”
Simon Duggan, a deputy secretary in the energy department, listed some of the steps that would be needed for nuclear to go ahead, including setting up management frameworks for health, safety, security, environmental impacts, as well as transport of nuclear fuels and waste, storage of waste and the workforce capability to build, maintain and regulate plants.
“Based on the work and the assessments that you have seen from bodies such as CSIRO and the [International Energy Agency] you are looking at around a 10- to 15-year timeframe to put all those prerequisites in place in order to have nuclear power capability in Australia,” Duggan said.
Many officers raised the issue of social licence and community consultation, saying this would be a critical step if any nuclear reactors were to be built in the future.
The opposition energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, who is also deputy chair of the inquiry, attacked analysis from the energy department which the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said showed the Coalition’s plan would mean a gap of at least 18% between electricity supply and demand.
Duggan said the analysis was based on assumptions supplied by the minister, where there would be no new investment in renewable energy, and that coal-fired power stations would stick to the closure schedule assumed by the Australian Energy Market Operator…………………………………………….
Clare Savage, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, told the inquiry she did not believe nuclear could be deployed in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants, which she said were becoming increasingly less reliable as they aged.
She told the inquiry that on the same day of the hearing, 26% of the total capacity of Australia’s coal-fired power fleet was offline. Eleven per cent of the coal fleet was down due to unplanned outages, she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/24/peter-dutton-nuclear-plant-sites-issues
Top Australian honour (whaa-at !!!!) for American politician who helped push Australia into the shonky AUKUS agreement
Rex Patrick, 24 Oct 24
Albanese pours $5B of Australian taxpayers’ cash into US shipyards (with no guarantee #AUKUS subs will ever be delivered). He then arranges for the local US Congressman to get a top Australian honour. Icing on the cake for that guy.
Rep. Courtney to receive Australia’s top civilian award
WSHU | By Brian Scott-Smith, October 23, 2024
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT-2) has been chosen for one of Australia’s top civilian awards. Courtney is one of a few Americans to be given the Order of Australia, which recognizes extraordinary service by a non-citizen…………………… He has also been instrumental in the AUKUS trilateral defense agreement between Australia, the UK and the U.S. to help provide nuclear submarines to Australia. It’s the first time the U.S. has entered into such an agreement with another country…….. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2024-10-23/ct-joe-courtney-australia-civilian-award
Australian nuclear news 21 – 28 October.
- Event: 5 November Protest weapons manufacturer conference in Canberra
- Support for nuclear power will evaporate at next election, Chris Bowen predicts
- Australia votes at the UN General Assembly.
- New Paper: Nuclear Weapons and Our Climate
- Australian Civil Society Statement for COP29 Baku, Azerbaijan.
- BAE Systems fire: blaze at shipyard ‘could delay Aukus’
- Low-level nuclear waste from submarines to be stored at Osborne, South Australia‘
- You couldn’t make this up’: Expert pans Ontario nuclear option.
- Crisafulli victory sets up awkward clash over nuclear.
- Atomic power probe shows experts divided on nuclear energy.
- Coalition’s nuclear plan is ‘today’s version of a lump of coal in parliament’, inquiry told.
- Matt Kean lambasts ‘wild fantasy’ of former Coalition colleagues to extend coal power and build nuclear plants
- Ambassador John Bolton tells 7NEWS Donald Trump re-election could mean AUKUS nuclear submarines plan torn up
- Drink up: Peter Dutton needs one billion empty Coke cans to store his nuclear waste
- Crisafulli at odds with Federal Coalition on nuclear
- Union slams “false hope” in nuclear push, warns energy jobs at risk
- Too old, too expensive: Coal can’t wait for nuclear, says energy regulator
- I’ll be the best friend you ever had, Peter Dutton promises miners.
- BHP’s untenable extraction of Great Artesian Basin waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine.
- Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
- Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.
- Delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear
- Nuclear too slow to replace coal by 2035.
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy – Submissions close 15 November.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy
The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy was established by a resolution of appointment that passed the House of Representatives on 10 October 2024.
The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025. The Committee will cease to exist upon presenting its final report.
Select Committee on Nuclear Energy
We will inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:
deployment timeframes;
fuel supply, and transport of fuel;
uranium enrichment capability;
waste management, transport and storage;
water use and impacts on other water uses;
relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;
Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;
risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;
potential share of total energy system mix;
necessary land acquisition;
costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;
the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and
any other relevant matter.
Delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear
Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.
The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.
I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe that we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.
Matt Kean, Former NSW treasurer, 22 Oct 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/matt-kean-fantasy-coalition-energy-policy-coal-nuclear-power?fbclid=IwY2xjawGFBTtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZOLw35JiI_0LOuO7ud0lCdaODH8ws-XTXtm6BjH-aQRT5FT8Ac8UKeUTQ_aem_yTUmsY_z33BOm66Ol9MkEA
Capital markets and the private sector have often been ahead of the curve in the debate over climate change.
They were prepared to discard the nonsense that action on climate change represented a choice between our environment and our economy.
(True economics – the economy is based on a healthy environment)
(False economics – profit is the first priority – consider the environment only later)
That’s because the forces reshaping the global economy are clear, the cost of low emissions technology is coming down, and the appetite of investors to direct capital towards it is surging.
These trends are now embedded and have forever shifted the dynamics of climate policy. Consider the sheer weight of capital now pouring into the low-carbon energy transition right across the world.
It means an economic arms race to capture the next generation of investment, resource projects, exports, jobs and innovation will continue to explode right across the world.
Australia should be at the front of the queue, positioning our nation as a renewable energy superpower and an economic powerhouse for decades to come.
We should have the confidence to be bold, knowing there is a clear capacity to attract the finance for the technology and innovation needed to reduce emissions.
Our track record tells us so we have continued to build the policy architecture needed to give comfort to investors, and we can tell a story of meaningful progress against our emissions reduction goals towards a contemporary clean-energy system, and in pursuit of the next wave of ideas to sustain our success.
The integrated system plan gives us a clear national blueprint for the generation, storage and transmission infrastructure needed to sustain a reliable, secure and affordable national electricity market.
It will also depend on enabling initiatives such as the capacity investment scheme, which is revolutionising our ability to encourage new investment in dispatchable renewable energy, generation and storage.
The scale of the scheme is simply mammoth, with a target of 32 gigawatts of new capacity, comprising 23 gigawatts of renewable capacity and 9 gigawatts of clean, dispatchable capacity.
In total, it’s expected to drive $67 billion worth of investment continuing to inject renewables into the system, backed by storage and firming technology.
It is the best, most affordable way to replace capacity lost as coal-fired power stations exit the system.
That’s the advice of the CSIRO. That’s the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and it’s one of the major assumptions that underpins the recently released sector pathways review produced by the Climate Change Authority, which I’m now pleased to chair.
Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time.
That’s because mature and available technology allows us to step up the pace of change, by building on the rise in clean energy that has seen the transformation of our grid.
More than 40 per cent of the nation’s electricity is now generated by renewables.
We need to consider this simple fact: as renewables have poured into the system, the emissions intensity of the national electricity market, the nation’s largest grid, has dropped by more than a third, and sectoral emissions can be dramatically slashed further if we continue to invest in new solar, wind, storage and firming solutions.
We know that as much as 90 per cent of the coal-fired power that has underpinned our economy is coming to the end of its technical life by 2035. It’s an ageing technology that is already adding to price spikes and reducing reliability for households and businesses.
And if we continue to depend on it, we accelerate the rundown of the limited carbon budget available to us, we would fall behind the curve on our near-term emissions reduction targets, and we would face the prospect of irreversible damage to our environment, our economy and our way of life.
We simply can’t afford to wait and hope that bigger breakthroughs are over the horizon, and perhaps more importantly, we can’t pander to those vested interests and self-serving groups who want to delay clean and cheap energy, seemingly to benefit their own careers or their profits at the expense of the environment, the economy and our people.
Recently, for example, an illiberal drive to intervene in the market-led energy transition has been elevated from internet chat rooms and lobby groups to the national stage.
The delay-mongers have latched on to nuclear power, despite the overwhelming evidence that it can only drive up energy bills, can only be more expensive, and can only take too long to build in a cost-of-living crisis.
I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia, and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system.
But they get their grabs up in the news, while the public get the growing energy bills that they can’t afford to pay.
Perhaps the biggest cost of nuclear is time. It is precious time that neither our economy nor our environment can afford, and it will once again plunge Australia back into indecision and delay.
A regime in flux lacks the stability and durability that investors need. Sensitivities will be further heightened when you add concepts that crowd out investment, forcing government-owned entities to fund, own and develop technology where Australia currently lacks capacity and that is arguably more expensive.
We don’t have the luxury of placing that bet, and that’s why, as chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always place a premium on science, evidence, engineering and economics; that’s how we build a modern energy system.
We need to continue to give households and businesses the affordable and reliable energy they want. And it’s how we continue to harness the wall of capital washing across the world to create a clean, strong future that lifts our prosperity and protects our way of life for decades ahead.
There is a lot to do, but we can do that. We can get there and deliver cheaper, reliable energy for everyone across the country, and set our country up for a stronger and more prosperous future than any generation of Australians has ever seen. That’s the chance. Let’s grab it.
Matt Kean is the former treasurer and energy minister of NSW. He now chairs the Climate Change Authority. This is an edited extract of his speech at The Australian Financial Review’s Energy & Climate Summit.
Nuclear too slow to replace coal by 2035
Financial Review, John Kehoe and Jenny Wiggins, 21 Oct 24
Energy executives say the development of nuclear power in Australia will be too slow to replace ageing coal-fired power plants in the next decade, as Climate Change Authority chairman Matt Kean accuses “delay-mongers” of latching onto the idea for a publicity stunt.
But beyond the urgent phase of the energy transition to renewables and gas-fired power, some executives and the energy market operator said nuclear should be left on the table as a potential energy source for Australia in the long term to keep up with rising power demand from consumers and businesses.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has pledged to build seven government-owned nuclear power stations by 2050 to meet Australia’s net zero emissions commitment. Under the high-level proposal, the first small modular reactor would arrive in 2035, although energy experts say this is overly ambitious and it would likely take years longer.
Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Daniel Westerman said, “urgent and sustained investment” in renewables generation was needed to replace retiring coal-fired power stations, as well as investment in storage and transmission lines over the next 10 years.
“That is not a time frame in which nuclear will be available,” Mr Westerman told The Australian Financial Review Climate and Energy Summit on Monday……………………………………………………….
Mr Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer who now leads the federal government’s independent climate change advisory body, will tell the Summit on Tuesday that there was overwhelming evidence that nuclear would increase energy bills and take too long to build.
“I suspect that even those arguing for nuclear don’t believe we’ll ever build one of these reactors in Australia … and certainly not in time to help manage the exit of coal from the system – but they get their grabs in the news, while the public will get growing energy bills they can’t afford to pay,” Mr Kean will say, according to his speaking notes.
Origin Energy chief executive Frank Calabria said that to achieve the Albanese government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target by 2030, a massive 32 gigawatts of generation needed to be brought online. “You’ll need to double that again in 2040,” Mr Calabria said.
Origin has examined small modular nuclear reactors but believes it is still early days for the technology, Mr Calabria said.
“Commercialisation and cost and scale are at least a decade away … it’s certainly into the 2030s.”
While Origin considered small reactors could be a potential future source of energy, it wouldn’t make a “single bet”, he said.
“We’re certainly not discounting it. I just wouldn’t overstate its role right today.”
The large-scale nuclear reactors promoted by the Coalition have “varying costs” and are also at least a decade away, he added.
“That for us feels much more difficult because we have got an influx of renewable energy that is going to be into the system and therefore is it going to intersect alongside that well?”
Origin is sticking with its revised target of August 2027 for shutting its Eraring coal power station in Lake Macquarie and is “agnostic” over what kind of energy replaces coal, Mr Calabria said.
The Origin boss acknowledged it would be difficult to create a reliable power system to replace coal, but expects solar panels to be installed on rooftops faster than expected.
Gas-fired power would also be needed as back-up power to solar, wind and battery-stored energy, he said.
The Albanese government is scrambling to meet an international commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, en route to a net zero goal by 2050.
Renewable energy including solar, wind, battery storage and pumped hydro forms the backbone of the government’s plan, with gas-peaking plants backing up the intermittent renewables.
NSW Climate and Energy Minister Penny Sharpe said the key challenge for nuclear was that coal will be phased out before nuclear is ready. “Nuclear just doesn’t fit that time frame,” she told the Summit. “Our challenge is to manage the [coal] exit as quickly as we can, while replacing it with renewables.”
……………………………………. Squadron Energy chief executive Rob Wheals said the whole nuclear debate was a distraction.
“It seems like a tactic of kicking the can down the road and actually not focusing on the technologies that we know are available and are available in the time frame that we’ve got,” he said.
Political fight
Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen panned the Coalition’s idea of starting a nuclear energy industry from scratch.
“The real danger in the Coalition’s nuclear scheme is the uncertainty it deliberately creates in relation to our grid. Investment is vital,” he said…………………………………….. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/nuclear-too-slow-to-replace-coal-by-2035-20241021-p5kjzg
This week – countering the nuclear-military-industrial -complex
Some bits of good news – Powering Up the Global South Elimination of trachoma as a public health problem in India. A powerful new film shows nature restoration in action.
TOP STORIES.
Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them?
Israel attacks the United Nations .
Secrets and Lies: This is how the West doomed Ukraine.Senior U.S. Diplomats, Journalists, Academics and Secretaries of Defense Say: the U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine.
Nuclear disarmament is an urgent cause in a world on the brink.
The Energy Department just made one plutonium pit. -making more is uncertain.
Making “Australia a Global Nuclear Waste Dump”: Senator Shoebridge on Labor’s Latest Betrayal.
Climate. The Atlantic Ocean’s currents are on the verge of collapse. This is what it means for the planet.
Noel’s notes. All the way with AI – up, up, then -into the abyss? Media enthusiasm for dodgy “cutting edge Lego-like micro-nuclear power plants” , (but doubts creep in).
*******************************************
AUSTRALIA
Congressional report suggests Australia could dump plans to acquire AUKUS nuclear submarines. Australia’s democracy trashed, as Labor government + Liberal opposition join forces to push AUKUS bills through. Queensland Premier Steven Miles is promising to hold a vote on nuclear power. Here’s why. Deadly war for journalists. More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/10/15/australian-nuclear-news-headlines-14-21-october/
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| ARTS and CULTURE. “We’re Spending 2 Trillion Dollars on Weapons That Must Never Be Used” |
| ATROCITIES. Israel Is Routinely Shooting Children in the Head in Gaza: US Surgeon & Palestinian Nurse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSZ1fTk4r8. We’re Basically Being Asked To Believe That The Palestinians Are Genociding Themselves. Gabor Mate: ‘It’s like we’re watching Auschwitz on TikTok’. |
| CLIMATE. The world’s top lying nuclear salesman is after your climate action money. How carbon capture and storage and nuclear are adding little to decarbonisation compared to solar and wind. |
| ECONOMICS. ‘A catastrophically poor bargain for the UK’: Experts verdict on government plan for new nuclear finance. New investment sought for Hinkley Point C as French twin nuclear reactor switched on. Apollo Global Management Inc in Talks to Partly Finance EDF’s Hinkley UK Nuclear Power Plant. |
| ENERGY. Open AI Wants to Build Data Centres That Would Consume More Electricity Per Year Than the Whole of the U.K. Small nuclear reactors won’t be ready in time for the needs of energy-guzzling needs of Artificial Intelligence ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/18/2-b1-small-nuclear-reactors-wont-be-ready-in-time-for-the-needs-of-energy-guzzling-needs-of-artificisal-intelligence/ |
| ENVIRONMENT. Oceans. A nuclear kettle of fish at Hinkley Point C. North Somerset village urges re-think on EDF salt marshes. Councillors raise concerns over fish populations at Hinkley C.Some Types of Pollution Are More Equal than Others. |
| LEGAL. Plutonium just had a bad day in court.Environmental groups challenge the nuclear industry’s portrayal of its energy as “clean” and “non-emitting,” citing health risks and long-term radioactive waste. |
| MEDIA. Revealed: The Israeli Spies Writing America’s News. Book: THE FALL OF ISRAEL: The Degradation of Israel’s Politics, Economy & Military. Deadly war for journalists – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykKth4sEbII |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Campaigners welcome international investors to UK summit but urge them to boycott “toxic investment” Sizewell C 14.10.24. Open Letter to the Department for Energy Security –new nuclear power ‘a catastrophically poor bargain’ |
| POLITICS. US opens applications for $900 million for small nuclear reactors (article includes a note of caution). Years after nuclear fiasco soaked ratepayers, leaders look at restarting VC Summer project . |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. “Goodbye Lebanon” – High Israeli Official. Biden Says OK, So Far. “Israel must be expelled from the United Nations”. Israel’s War on the United Nations. Another Phony Biden PR Stunt About Humanitarian Aid In Gaza.Ukraine ‘will seek nuclear weapons’ if it cannot join Nato. Biden should channel Trump and talk to Putin. North Somerset MP objects to salt marsh at Kingston Seymour. |
| SAFETY. New phase in safety work on Chernobyl’s original shelter. Incidents. Nuclear Missile Submarines Collided (Armed with Hundreds of Nuclear Weapons). |
| SECRETS and LIES. Exposed: How Israeli spies control your VPN (Virtual Private Network).Zelensky aide reveals secret clauses of ‘victory plan’. |
SPINBUSTER.Refuting myths about nuclear and renewable energy.The Irony of Powering AI on Atomic Energy.Competition Bureau asked to address nuclear industry’s false and misleading claims of “clean” and “non-emitting” energy. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Google Pivots to Nuclear Reactors to Power Its Artificial Intelligence. What does Google’s move into nuclear power mean for AI – and the world? Amazon bets on nuclear power to fuel AI ambitions. To make nuclear fusion a reliable energy source one day, scientists will first need to design heat- and radiation-resilient materials |
| WASTES. How to build a nuclear tomb to last millennia.Decommissioning. First ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarine to be disposed of enters final dismantling phase. Video. Gordon Edwards on Nuclear Fuel Waste Abandonment (South Bruce). |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Volodomyr’s World: A Delusional ‘Victory Plan’. Widening the War: The US Sends Troops to Israel. Leaked US Intelligence Documents Outline Israeli Preparations to Strike Iran. Nuclear Fever: War Mongering on Iran. Report: Israel Plans To Strike Iran Before US Presidential Election. Will Israel cross the red line of targeting Iran’s nuclear sites? An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could backfire. Under the shadow of a NATO-Russia nuclear war, Hibakusha awarded Nobel Peace Prize. |
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. 200+ Jewish-Led Protesters Arrested at NY Stock Exchange Say ‘Stop Arming Israel’. U.S. to Deploy Missile Defense System and About 100 Troops to Israel.
Germany Dismisses Ukraine’s Demands for Taurus Missiles and NATO Membership. Ukraine must have nukes or NATO – Zelensky.
NATO Announces Nuclear Drills as Nobel Goes to Atomic Weapon Abolitionists.
China’s openness about its latest nuclear missile test shows growing confidence vis-à-vis the United States. China not part of nuclear arms race, says envoy.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton heckled by protesters opposed to building a nuclear power station in Collie
ABC News, 18 Oct 24
In short:
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been met by angry protesters in Collie, who oppose his plan to build a nuclear power station in the town.
Mr Dutton was meeting with local shire representatives and was ushered to a waiting car as the small group pleaded with him to speak with them.
Mr Dutton said Collie residents “well and truly” support the proposal, that it was “silly” to suggest he hid from protesters and accused the ABC of bias……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-18/peter-dutton-heckled-over-collie-nuclear-power-station-plans/104490524
TODAY. All the way with AI – up, up, then -into the abyss?
In Australia – way back – we used to say “All the way with USA!”. (We still do – can’t help it – it’s our “cultural cringe” – we think we’re a bit stupid).
But sorry – all the way with AI doesn’t rhyme – which makes the whole thing even gratingly worse.
I’ve been alerted to this global problem by the wonderful article “ Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them?“, by the heretical Rebecca Solnit. In a previous era, she would have been burnt at the stake. Probably still will be, the way things are going.
At least she’ll have company- there are bound to be many deaths as wildfires become more prevalent and more severe. Yes, I’m talking about climate change – that boring old subject, which shouldn’t get a mention in the media, while we obsess over important stuff, Trump’s caps, and childless cat ladies.
It’s not as if Rebecca Solnit is telling us anything new, really. We all know that big leaps in technology are led by ambitious, technically brilliant, highly competitive men. Somehow or other, we revere these men, even though some of them clearly have a strangely lop-sided cognitive state -with a deficit in integrity and ethics.
That’s why “progress” from way back, then through the industrial revolution, and now the digital revolution has been accompanied by shocking exploitation of millions of people . It’s been the ill-treatment of “the working class”, of indigenous peoples – to develop mines, and progress in transport and modern industries, and of course, in warfare. But still we admired and followed the “captains of industry” who led us all into the mixed bag of “progress”
Today’s captains of industry – Musk, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg – and about 7 more digital champions are headed towards becoming trillionaires – with many other clever technical billionaires in the running, too. Along with their obscene wealth goes their power and influence over governments , education, and media.
Rebecca Solnit brings something different to this discussion. She simply points out, using the example of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt – the mindset that we should not worry about climate change – we should go ahead with AI because somehow Artificial Intelligence will solve the problem.
As Solnit says “decoy is the new denial” , meaning that “we ignore workable present-day solutions in favor of unworkable and nonexistent ones while continuing to burn fossil fuel.”
We know that the solutions are there – thousands of scientists are telling us. But these thousands of men, and women, too – have more normal brains, including qualities of integrity and ethics, and the ability to look at the total picture, and imagine the future.
Sorry, but to me, the tech squillionaires are looking increasingly like the Christian religious figures of the past – who frightened the public with fears of burning in hell, and then sold the public “indulgences” that were supposed to save them from hell.
Refuting myths about nuclear and renewable energy
15 Oct 2024, Mark Diesendorf, https://renew.org.au/renew-magazine/renew/refuting-myths-about-nuclear-and-renewable-energy/
There’s a lot of talk at present about nuclear energy being a strong contender in Australia’s energy market. But how much is political spin getting in the way of fact? Dr Mark Diesendorf unpacks some of the myths that are out there.
The AUKUS agreement has given renewed stimulus to the nuclear energy lobby. With campaign support from the Murdoch press, they have increased their efforts to denigrate renewable energy and to promote nuclear energy and fossil gas in its place.
Because of the sheer volume of their campaign and the difficulty of publishing fact checks and refutations in the mass media, public opinion polls indicate that some people seem to be taking the misleading claims of the nuclear lobby seriously. In this article, I seek to refute the principal myths the lobby is disseminating.
Myth: Renewables cannot supply 100% electricity
Denmark, South Australia and Scotland already obtain 88%, 74% and 62% of their respective annual electricity generations from renewables, mostly wind. Scotland actually supplies the equivalent of 113% of its electricity consumption from renewables; the difference between its generation and consumption is exported by transmission line.
All three jurisdictions have achieved this with relatively small amounts of hydroelectricity, zero in South Australia. Given the political will, South Australia and Denmark could reach 100% net renewables generation by 2030, as indeed two northern states of Germany have already done. The ‘net’ means they trade some electricity with neighbours but on average will be at 100% renewables.
Computer simulations by several research groups, including ours at UNSW, using real hourly wind, solar and demand data spanning several years, show that the Australian electricity system could be run entirely on renewable energy, with the main contributions coming from solar and wind. System reliability can be maintained by a combination of storage, building excess generating capacity for wind and solar (which is cheap), key transmission links, and demand management encouraged by transparent pricing.
Storage to fill infrequent troughs in generation from the variable renewable sources will comprise existing hydro, pumped hydro (mostly small-scale and off-river), and batteries. Geographic dispersion of renewables will also assist.
For the rare extended periods of Dunkelflaute (literally ‘dark doldrums’), gas turbines with stores of biofuels or green hydrogen could be kept in reserve as insurance.
Coal and nuclear power stations are too inflexible in operation to be useful as backup—they require a whole day to start up from cold and, when operating, have difficulty and increased costs in attempting to vary their output to follow the peaks and troughs in demand.
Myth: We need baseload power stations
This is an old, discredited claim that refers to the past when variable renewables (wind and solar) were absent and the fossil fuelled electricity supply system consisted mainly of two types of power station: baseload and peak load.
Baseload power stations, such as coal and nuclear, operate 24/7 at maximum power output, except then they break down or undergo planned maintenance. Because of their inflexibility in operation, the former system also needed to supplement baseload with peak load power stations, hydro-electric and gas turbines. Peak load stations can vary their output rapidly in response to rapid changes in demand or breakdowns in baseload supply.
When a nuclear power reactor breaks down, it can be useless for weeks or months. For a conventional large reactor rated at 1000 to 1600 megawatts, the impact of breakdown on electricity supply can be disastrous. Big nuclear needs big back-up, which is expensive. Small modular reactors are not commercially available nor likely to be in the foreseeable future.
A renewable electricity system, including storage, delivers the same reliability, and hence the same economic value, as the traditional fossil fuelled system based on a mix of baseload and peak-load power stations.
Myth: Gas can fill the gap until nuclear is constructed
As a fuel for electricity generation, fossil gas in eastern Australia is many times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal, so it’s not generally used for baseload power. Instead, it’s used for fuelling gas turbines for meeting the peaks in demand and helping to fill troughs in supply. For this purpose, it contributes about 5% of Australia’s annual electricity generation. But, as storage expands, fossil gas will become redundant in the electricity system.
The fact that baseload gas-fired electricity generation continues temporarily in Western Australia results from a unique history. Unlike the eastern states, WA has a Domestic Gas Reservation Policy that insulates domestic customers from the high export prices of gas. However, most new gas supplies would have to come from high-cost unconventional sources.
South Australia has an ancient, struggling, gas-fired power station, Torrens Island, that was originally regarded as baseload, but can no longer perform as baseload. It will be closed in 2026 and replaced with renewables and batteries. South Australia will soon have 100% renewable electricity without a single baseload power station.
Myth: Nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables
Assuming that Australia would not buy nuclear reactors from China or Russia, the only choices are the European Nuclear Reactor and the Westinghouse AP-1000 (or variants thereof). The former type is under construction in Finland, France and the UK. In each case, construction times have greatly increased and original cost estimates have tripled or more.
In South Carolina USA, two AP-1000 reactors were abandoned while under construction due to delays and cost escalation—under state law the electricity customers had to pay for the failed project. In Georgia USA, two AP-1000 reactors have just been completed at double the original cost. They are the only new nuclear power reactors commenced in the USA since the 1970s and completed. Nuclear power projects bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017.
South Korea is exporting its modification of the Westinghouse reactor, the APR-1400, subsidised by an unknown amount by its government. Its only export project so far, the Barakah project in UAE, is three years behind schedule—the extent of its cost overrun is unknown.
The state-owned Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) has a debt equivalent to US$149 billion resulting mainly from its nuclear investments.
All expert studies—e.g. by CSIRO, AEMO, and the multinational investment advisor Lazard—find that nuclear is the most expensive electricity generating technology, while solar PV and wind are the cheapest. This is true after including the cost of ‘firming’ renewables with storage.
Contrary to the claims of some nuclear proponents, the levelised cost method used in these studies takes account of the different lifetimes of the technologies. It also includes the cost of connecting the power stations to the main grid. While renewables will need a few additional major high-voltage transmission links, so would nuclear.
Myth: Nuclear energy can co-exist with large contributions from renewables
This myth has two refutations:
- Nuclear is too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for variable wind and solar. Its very high capital cost necessitates running it constantly at full power, not just during periods of low sun or wind. This would mean offloading renewables, although they are much cheaper to operate.
- On current growth trends of renewables, there will be no room for nuclear energy in South Australia, Victoria or NSW. The 2022 shares of renewables in total electricity generation in each of these states were 74%, 37% and 33% respectively. Rapid growth from these levels is likely. It’s already too late for nuclear in SA. Provided the growth of renewables is not deliberately suppressed in NSW and Victoria, these states too will reach 100% renewables long before the first nuclear power station could go online
Myth: There is insufficient land for wind and solar
Although a wind farm may span a large area, its turbines, access road and substation together occupy a tiny fraction of that area, typically about 2%. Most wind farms are built on land that was previously cleared for agriculture and are compatible with all forms of agriculture. Off-shore wind occupies no land.
Solar farms are increasingly being built sufficiently high off the ground to allow sheep to graze beneath them, providing welcome shade. This practice, known as agrivoltaics, provides additional farm revenue that’s especially valuable during droughts. Rooftop solar occupies no land.
Myth: Nuclear energy is safe
Nuclear energy is dangerous for three reasons: its contribution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the impacts of nuclear accidents and the task of managing high-level nuclear wastes for 100,000 years or more.
The two principal nuclear explosives are Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. Both can be obtained from the nuclear energy supply chain.
Under the cloak of nuclear energy, several countries—the UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa—have produced nuclear weapons either by further enrichment of uranium to increase the concentration of Uranium-235 beyond the level (3-4%) required for nuclear energy or by extracting Plutonium-239 from the spent fuel of their nuclear power reactors.
In addition, the following countries have attempted to use nuclear power to produce nuclear explosives while cloaking their development of nuclear weapons: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Libya, South Korea and Taiwan.
Fortunately, they did not complete their programs for various reasons. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked.
The most serious nuclear accidents were the Kyshtym disaster in the former USSR in 1957, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA in 1979, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. Except for Three Mile Island, which took the US to the brink of a major disaster, each of these accidents have likely caused many thousands of cancer deaths from exposure to ionising radiation.
There are no operating permanent repositories for high-level nuclear wastes. Finland is the only country that’s close to completing a deep underground repository. The USA spent billions developing one at an unsuitable site in Nevada and then had to abandon it.
At present, high-level wastes are in temporary storage above ground at nuclear reactor sites, either in steel and concrete casks or in pools of water.
The contrast between nuclear and renewable energy technologies is demonstrated by their respective responses to the earthquake and tsunami that struck the Pacific coast of Japan in 2011.
At the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power station, three of the six nuclear reactors melted down, accompanied by hydrogen explosions that expelled vast amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.
Further down the coast at Kamisu, the tsunami passed through a near-shore wind farm located in the surf (see picture) without stopping it. It was only shut down when the grid went down and recommenced operating when the grid was restored three days later.
In summary
Renewables—solar, wind and existing hydro—together with storage and energy efficiency, can supply all Australia’s electricity and ultimately all energy, including transportation and heating.
Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, too slow to build, and too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for wind and solar. A nuclear scenario would inevitably involve the suppression of clean, inexpensive, safe renewables.
TODAY. Media enthusiasm for dodgy “cutting edge Lego-like micro-nuclear power plants” , (but doubts creep in).
modules assembled “like a LEGO kit” and designed to be fabricated, transported, and assembled within 24 months”
BUT -“the tech is still in the early stages and faces a myriad of hurdles.”
“has yet to obtain licensing and planning approvals“
“How the new fleet of SMRs will be funded has yet to be established. The technology is not yet generating power anywhere in the world”
I am fascinated with the way that the media continues to obediently trot out the official dogma that small nuclear reactors are the new great white hope – for everything – jobs, reduce carbon emissions, revitalise the economy, cheap, clean, plentiful energy, – blah blah. The interesting thing is that, in the midst of their enthusiasm, some respectable news outlets occasionally now slip in a little bit of doubt.
A couple of examples of doubt from the UK.:
Guy Taylor, Transport and Infrastructure Correspondent at City A.M. enthuses over a “hotly anticipated tender“ surrounding the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR)’s in the UK. A micro reactor project in Wales will bring energy for 244,000 UK homes – “will pump around £30m into the local economy”.
But he also mentions that “the tech is still in the early stages and faces a myriad of hurdles.”
Ian Weinfass, in Construction News gives a positive, optimistic, story on this micro nuclear reactor development, but clearly states that the company (Last Energy) “has yet to obtain licensing and planning approvals for its technology.“ He tellingly concludes “How the new fleet of SMRs will be funded has yet to be established. The technology is not yet generating power anywhere in the world”
However, don’t fret, little nuclear rent-seekers! Most of the media is still obedient, and they know which side their bread is buttered on . Sion Barry, writing in Wales Online, describes the same “24/7 clean energy” project as “of national significance“. There’s a reassuring note about wastes, and the barest mention of “planning and licensing approvals“. Business Green discusses the Last Energy plan as “clean energy” – modules assembled “like a LEGO kit” and designed to be fabricated, transported, and assembled within 24 months”
News media, on the whole, are happy to uncritically trot out a nuclear company’s line – as we find this same project touted in Reuters, in Power, Sustainable Times, in New Civil Engineer. On Google News today, there are 15 similar articles, with only Yahoo! News including a tad of doubt about local public reaction.
And by the way, Tom Pashby in New Civil Engineer also adds to the joy by telling us that the company involved, Last Energy is working with Nato on military applications of micro-reactors.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 