Jewish Council disappointed at Australia’s UN abstention, calls for strong international action to prevent Israeli war crimes
By Jewish Council of Australia, September, 19, 2024
The Jewish Council of Australia says it is deeply disappointed at Australia’s abstention from a critical United Nations General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months. The resolution passed with 124 votes in favour, highlighting global frustration with Israel’s actions.
In a statement, the JCA said Australia’s abstention did not align with its commitments to international law and peace-building. While the Australian Government had indicated support for many aspects of the resolution, its failure to vote in favour was s a missed opportunity to show stronger, principled leadership, the Jewish group said.
“This vote comes at the same time as further apparent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, a day after the pager attacks,” a statement from the JCA said.
“The Jewish Council of Australia condemns these attacks. Their indiscriminate nature, killing dozens and injuring thousands of civilians, is an apparent war crime which underscores the urgent need for a collective international response to prevent Israel further breaching international law.
“We call on the government to join with other countries in condemning the killing of innocent civilians, and reiterate our calls for Australia to take material action by imposing sanctions and throwing its weight behind a global arms embargo.
JCA executive officer Sarah Schwartz said:
“We condemn the loss of any innocent life. Australia and the international community must take material steps to prevent, and ensure accountability for, the commission of war crimes. These indiscriminate attacks, which have killed innocent bystanders, are the behaviour of a rogue state and should be treated as such.”
JCA executive officer Dr Max Kaiser added:
“We urge the Australian government to join the vast majority of countries in the international community that are taking a firm stance. Australia can and should be doing more to hold Israel accountable for its unlawful presence in Palestinian territories. The time for decisive action is now.”
Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills
Report Nuclear Electric Grid Energy Policy Australia
September 20, 2024, Johanna Bowyer and Tristan Edis, https://ieefa.org/resources/nuclear-australia-would-increase-household-power-bills
Key Findings
Typical Australian households could see electricity bills rise by AUD665/year on average under the opposition Coalition’s plans to introduce nuclear to the country’s energy mix.
IEEFA analysed six scenarios based on relevant international examples of nuclear power construction projects; in every scenario, bills increased by hundreds of dollars.
For households that use more electricity, bills could rise more – for a four-person household, the bill rise was found to be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and regions.
The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.
Australia’s main federal opposition, the Liberal-National Coalition, has proposed building seven nuclear power plants across the country, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). This report seeks to detail the likely impact on household consumers’ electricity bills from such a plan, based on recent real-world experience from construction costs for nuclear power plants around the world.
Rather than use theoretical projected costs, we have calculated the potential electricity bill impact for a range of nuclear cost recovery scenarios, based on the following real-world examples:
Finland: Olkiluoto Unit 3. France: Flamanville Unit 3. UK: Hinkley Point C. US: Vogtle Units 3 and 4.US SMR: NuScale SMR. Czech Republic: Dukovany proposed plant expansion.
The first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent. Commenting on nuclear construction cost estimates, electricity market economist Professor Paul Joskow states: “The best estimates are drawn from actual experience rather than engineering cost models.”
In the case of SMRs, no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country, so we instead used the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project. We also used this approach for assessing the costs for a proposal to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a separate democratic country with laws protecting labour rights, outside of its country of origin – the Czech Republic.
Household electricity bills impact
We found that electricity bills would need to rise in order for nuclear costs to be recovered. The chart below illustrates the resulting increase in typical household power bills if nuclear power plants with similar costs and characteristics to the international examples were built in Australia. The average bill increase was AUD665/year across states and nuclear scenarios for households with a median level of electricity consumption. The lowest impact is equivalent to bill increases of AUD260-AUD353 per year, linked to estimated costs for the pre-construction project Dukovany, which is highly likely to underestimate final costs. The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is AUD383-AUD461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of more than AUD1,000 per year are possible.
Figure 1 [on original]: Increase in typical household electricity bill to recover cost of nuclear plants based on different countries’ experience (AUD/year)
The range of costs is wide due to the significant cost differentials for large-scale nuclear in different countries, and the significant cost uncertainty for SMR technology, which is still under development. The impact in each state can vary due to differing typical electricity consumption levels in each state, and different electricity bill cost structures.
For households using more electricity than the median level, the bill increases from nuclear would be higher. For example, for a four-person household the bill impact would be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and states, and for a five-person household AUD1,182/year.
How nuclear costs are reflected on electricity bills
These results might come as surprising to some, because large-scale nuclear is a mature technology currently in use across a wide range of countries. In addition, misinterpreted data on retail electricity prices (which also include the costs of powerlines and taxes, not just generators and so is misleading) can show some cases of nations that use nuclear who have lower retail prices than Australia.
However, in almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power. This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada. In other jurisdictions, such as a number of US states including Georgia where the Vogtle power plant is located, there isn’t actually an electricity market in operation, with consumers instead served by a regulated monopoly without any competitive choice.
The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return. This implies that the Coalition expect that wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return. The Coalition has also outlined that these nuclear power plants would operate at full capacity almost all of the time. Therefore, power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.
High costs of recent nuclear projects
The reason bills increased in this study is because recent large-scale nuclear projects across Europe and North America involved very high costs. The European Pressured Reactor (EPR) program had promised to deliver more efficient, safer nuclear power. However, the three recent projects (Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C), which have either just been completed or are under construction, have all faced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. If plants with similar costs and characteristics were built in Australia, they would require a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) between AUD250 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and AUD346/MWh to recover their costs.
A few other types of reactors are being built or considered internationally of a similar design to what the Coalition indicates might be built in Australia: the South Korean APR1000 design proposed at Dukovany in the Czech Republic; and a Westinghouse AP1000 design recently completed at Vogtle in the US. The Vogtle plant experienced seven years of delays and actual capital costs (excluding financing costs) 1.7 times the original estimates. Those plants present LCOEs of between AUD197 and AUD220 per MWh in an Australian context – noting the Dukovany costs are only initial pre-construction estimates and could rise.
Based on NuScale, we estimate that the LCOE of nuclear SMR in an Australian context would be AUD289/MWh – but could be far higher if construction extends beyond the 3.25 years used in this study – as financing costs increase as construction timelines extend.
Capital costs (excluding financing costs) of recent nuclear power builds have tended to blow out by a factor of between 1.7 and 3.4, leading to financial difficulties for companies involved. All conventional nuclear projects built in recent years in the US and Europe – Vogtle, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C and Flamanville 3 – have contributed to financial difficulties for companies involved. Westinghouse, which was the technology provider for Vogtle, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. France’s AREVA, who was the original technology provider for Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C, came close to bankruptcy over 2015, which required a French Government-sponsored bail-out.
The chart below [on original] details the wholesale market prices required for each of the recently constructed or quoted nuclear plants to be commercially viable, relative to the current wholesale electricity costs being passed through in household electricity bills in the regions of Victoria, NSW, South East Queensland (SEQ) and South Australia (SA).
[Figure 2: Current wholesale energy cost (WEC) component of current household bills compared to commercial price to recover nuclear plant costs in Australian context (AUD/MWh)]
Australia would likely face even higher large-scale nuclear costs than these recent international examples, due to the country’s limited nuclear capability and the small size of any potential Australian nuclear build-out program. With seven nuclear power stations proposed (two of them SMR-only), all at separate sites, there will be limited scope to achieve learning-based cost reductions like those seen in a large continuous build program, for example the build program in South Korea on which CSIRO’s GenCost costings are based. South Korea has built 26 reactors since the 1970s. Further, the assumptions in this report have provided an optimistic levelised cost of electricity for nuclear, for example using a 60-year economic lifetime, 93% capacity factor, and a low discount rate.
Our analysis suggests household power bills would need to rise significantly for nuclear power plants to become a commercially viable investment in the absence of substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies. In IEEFA’s opinion, any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia – such as that proposed by the Coalition – should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.
Peter Dutton is about to talk nuclear at CEDA. Will he be fact checked by Chris Uhlmann?
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Giles Parkinson, Sep 19, 2024
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen calls it the great distraction. Virtually everyone in the electricity market calls it a nonsense, but Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s efforts to put the nuclear debate on centre stage appears to be gaining traction.
On Monday, Dutton takes his nuclear campaign, complete with obvious untruths and exaggerations, to the august environment of the Committee For Economic Development of Australia. The event, on Monday, is titled “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?
CEDA was established in 1960 to “better understand and interrogate public policy” and says it remains independent and not restricted by vested interests or political persuasion. It should, in that case, be the perfect place for Dutton’s nuclear claims to be fact-checked.
Dutton has so far revealed little about his nuclear policy, apart from a vague plan to build reactors, both large-scale and the yet-to-be-commercialised small modular reactors (SMRs) at seven sites across the country where coal fired power stations have or still do operate.
The premise, according to the Coalition, is simple. Just build them and plug them in where there is an existing grid connection, and Australians will be protected from the lights going out and the economy being sent back to the dark ages, something it insists will be the result of Labor’s renewable energy roadmap.
It’s not clear how much more Dutton will tell CEDA about the details of the nuclear plan. He has insisted that the first reactors could be up and running and producing power by 2035 – a fanciful idea according to the regulators and other experts who point out that the late 2040s might be closer to the mark.
Dutton insists that nuclear is essential for the net zero target. It might be for other countries, particularly those with inferior solar resources and a well-established nuclear industry, but for Australia that claim is a nonsense.
The clear intention of the Coalition to slow, even stop, the rollout of new wind, solar and battery storage projects, extend the life of ageing coal generators and invest heavily in new gas – all of which will blow Australia’s emissions budget over the coming decades. It is difficult to think of a worse idea if climate change is the motivation.
Dutton has been regularly fact-checked on a number of other claims both here, and on the Guardian – less so, if not at all, in the rest of mainstream media and on radio and TV, where the claims are often broadcast. It hasn’t deterred him.
It includes the claim that Labor is looking to build 28,000 km of transmission lines to support its green energy transition. Not true. it has only targeted little more than 5,000kms.
The 28,000 km is a target under the most optimistic green energy scenario – it was developed by the Australian Energy Market Operator in its modelling under the previous Coalition government, and has changed little since then.
Dutton claims that nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar and storage. Again, not true and not by a long shot, according to recognised and respected Australian and international experts – all of whom have come under fierce attack by the Coalition and its attack dogs on social media.
It includes the claim that nuclear leads to lower power bills for consumers. But that only happens when the nuclear power is heavily subsidised, as it is in France, and when consumers are protected from market forces.
Ontario is often cited by the Coalition as having cheaper electricity prices than Australia, but they forget to tell you Ontario’s electricity prices are significantly higher than other Canadian provinces, thanks to nuclear.
Australia’s bills are weighed down by the cost of networks, servicing a population nearly twice the size of Ontario in a land are more than seven times bigger.
Dutton’s claim that nuclear can be plugged in to existing power grids without the need for upgrades is also nonsense. Most of those sites already have replacement capacity – Port Augusta and Collie in particular, and the site owners at Liddell, Mt Piper and Loy Yang have their own plans that definitely do not include nuclear.
The Coalition and their choristers also insist that nuclear somehow requires no additional back-up. That would be a miracle. All forms of generation require back up to ensure the lights stay on in case of an unexpected outage, or planned and long term maintenance.
Nuclear is no exception – it was the cause of massive amounts of pumped hydro being built around the world, in France, the Americas and China – and the size of its units at large scale mean additional measures are needed should the units go offline, even if the cause is as mundane as a tree falling across power lines.
Dutton insists that nuclear is attractive because it is “baseload” and “always on.” But modern grids demand flexibility, and none more so than Australia where – because of its excellent solar resources, the falling cost of PV and the high retail prices – more rooftop solar has been installed per capita than anywhere else in the world.
That rooftop PV is already causing problems for the existing “baseload” generators – coal and gas: It destroys their business models, and is technically challenging. The economics of nuclear relies more than any other on being “always on”.
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Dutton’s event will be compered by Chris Uhlmann, the former ABC political editor who became an instant “expert” in grids and renewables when he seized on the South Australia state-blackout and blamed it all on wind energy, even though multiple reports from regulators and energy experts have shown that not to be the case.
Will Uhlmann fact-check Dutton in the way that CEDA might expect? Uhlmann has spent much of his time since joining Sky News and The Australian earlier this year attacking the same targets as the Coalition – the IPCC, climate science itself, emissions targets, and the transition away from fossil fuels.
One of his more egregious pieces was an attack last month on a research report “Fossil Fuels are a Health Hazard” that was put together by the Doctors for the Environment Australia. Uhlmann’s piece in the Weekend Australian was titled “Fossil fuel bans are hazardous to our health”.
It included claims by Uhlmann that products such as panadol and soap depend on fossil fuels. Nonsense, the doctors wrote in response: These products might source fossil fuels now, but they don’t need to. No, we can’t stop using fossil fuels overnight, but we can phase them out very quickly.
The promotion of nuclear and fossil fuels, and attacks and the downplaying of climate science often go hand in hand. Will that be the case at CEDA next week?
As Nicholas Talley and Kate Wylie wrote in the excellent Croakey:
“Journalists have an opportunity to raise public awareness of climate change, using their power to encourage transformative action on what is termed the defining story of our time. They have a responsibility to ensure their coverage is evidence based and reports on the very real scientific and health warnings.”
Monday’s event should be very interesting.
TODAY. The West embraces SOCIALISM – first of the nuclear kind, -and then?
Proud defenders of individual liberty, private enterprise , and of the free market solving everything, the West has run into a spot of bother over the nuclear industry.
Good old dictatorships don’t have this problem. Russia , North Korea and China can develop government-run nuclear power programmes faster and cheaper, (though sadly, China is falling behind, due to the success of its renewable energy industry). Saudi Arabia has its Saudi National Atomic Energy Project (SNAEP). The Saudi one should do very well, as they don’t have pesky women in power, raising objections.
But never fear – things are looking up for nuclear power in the “free” West.
For one thing, everybody’s now realising that the “peaceful” nuclear industry is absolutely essential for the weapons nuclear industry. And as defence, (and attack) are a government responsibility, well, then, the tax-payer must cough up to help the “commercial” unclear industry.
And if we’re going to do the job properly, let’s take up the faster ?cheaper methods of Russia, North Korea, – maybe not China as they’re too much into renewable energy. Saudi Arabia’s system sounds promising – we don’t want silly emotional women bleating about cost and safety.
France has always recognised that the government should run all things nuclear – right from the days of its toxic nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific, and even today, despite a bit of trouble with costs, and the impacts of climate change causing rivers to overheat.
The USA government has always found devious ways to prop up its supposedly private nuclear industry.
Britain has come up with its system of “Regulated Asset Base” . This means that electricity customers are charged a fee from day one of the construction of the nuclear project, and cop the burden of cost overruns (as happened in the USA with the Vogtle nuclear fiasco). The UK government, rather than the developer, underwrites the risk of construction cost overrun “above a remote threshold” – referred to as the “Funding Cap”. – (more https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/rab-and-go-getting-new-nuclear-underway).
The previous Tory UK government set up “Great British Nuclear” – with the tax-payer supporting the nuclear industry. Keir Starmer’s Labour government continued this , with – a new, publicly owned, energy company, “Great British Energy “.
In Australia, the Liberal-National Coalition Party, led by Peter Dutton, stands for private enterprise, individual freedom, and total opposition to socialism
In 2023 this Party had an amazing success, in turning Australian public opinion around towards an anti-indigenous stance in a referendum intended to give indigenous people a Voice to Parliament. This very right-wing party was helped by the Murdoch media, and also by a powerful social media campaign, and by the Atlas Network – to gain quite a degree of control over public opinion.
Again with the help of the Murdoch media, and the Atlas Network, the global nuclear lobby could have a resounding tax-payer funded success.
So – ironically – it will be a party dedicated to private enterprise and individual liberty that could bring in completely government-run nuclear industry to a whole Western democratic continent.
The UK’s nuclear waste problem
“more nuclear power means more nuclear waste”
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK, 16 Sept 24 https://theweek.com/environment/the-uks-nuclear-waste-problem
Safety concerns as ‘highly radioactive’ material could be buried in the English countryside
“Not in my backyard” is a term normally used in conversations about proposed new housing or rail lines, but a version of it could soon be heard about one of the most dangerous materials on the planet.
Nuclear power stations are filling up with radioactive waste, so “swathes” of the highly dangerous material are set to be “buried in the English countryside”, said The Telegraph. For local communities, it isn’t so much “not in my backyard” as “not under my backyard”, said the Financial Times.
‘100,000 years of hazard’
Sellafield, in Cumbria, is the “temporary home to the vast majority of the UK’s radioactive nuclear waste”, said the BBC, “as well as the world’s largest stockpile of plutonium”. It’s stuck there because no long-term, high-level waste facilities have been created to deal with it.
The “highly radioactive material” releases energy that can infiltrate and damage the cells in our bodies, Claire Corkhill, professor of radioactive waste management at the University of Bristol, told the broadcaster, and “it remains hazardous for 100,000 years”.
The permanent plan to handle the waste currently at Sellafield is to first build a designated 650ft-deep pit to store it. Although the contentious matter of its location has yet to be agreed, the facility will hold some of the 5 million tonnes of waste generated by nuclear power stations over the past seven decades. Then, in the second half of the century, a much deeper geological disposal site will be dug, which will hold the UK’s “most dangerous waste”, such as plutonium, said The Telegraph.
The problem is only going to get bigger because nuclear power is a central part of the government’s mission for “clean power by 2030” and “more nuclear power means more nuclear waste”, said the BBC.
With at least three new nuclear power stations planned, said The Telegraph, the country will quickly be “at odds with” the 1976 review of nuclear waste policy by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which warned the UK was amassing nuclear waste so fast that it should stop building reactors until it had a solution.
‘Poison portal’
Some believe part of that solution will be found overseas. Earlier this year, there were warnings that Australia could become a “poison portal” for the UK and US as a result of a new three-nation defence pact called Aukus. The original wording of the agreement would allow for facilities to be created to dispose of waste from “Aukus submarines”, which could have included UK and US vessels.
Dave Sweeney, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner, warned at the time that Aukus partners could see Australia as “a little bit of a radioactive terra nullius”.
After pushback, the Australian government added a loophole to the legislation to “ensure Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste”, said The Guardian.
But the Australian Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the changes did not go far enough. The amendment only addresses high-level radioactive waste, he said, and “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
Hidden costs? Cheaper energy? ‘Farcical’ locations? Debunking the hype around nuclear
29 June 2024 , By Charis Chang, SBS News
Seven nuclear power plants could be built in Australia if the Coalition wins the next election, but will they live up to the hype?
Australians are being promised a brighter future with nuclear as the answer to rising energy costs.
As concerns grow over the cost of living and rollout of renewables, the Coalition has announced an alternative vision, promising to build seven nuclear power plants across the country if elected.
Last week, it confirmed it would push for nuclear power plants to be built at Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in South Australia, Loy Yang in Victoria and Muja in Western Australia.
“We have a vision for our country: to deliver cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity,” Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on 19 June.
But can nuclear in Australia live up to the hype?
Can nuclear bring down electricity prices?
One of the biggest claims the Coalition makes is that
nuclear energy could bring down the price of electricity
in Australia.
Dutton told the Today show on 21 June: “In Ontario, for example — they have 60 per cent nuclear in the mix there, their electricity prices are a quarter of what it is here in Australia”.
But Tim Buckley, director of think tank Climate Energy Finance, questioned how a form of energy that would produce “zero” electricity for the next 15 to 20 years, could bring down power prices.
In the meantime, the Coalition’s plan would undermine investor confidence so Australia didn’t get as much electricity supply from other sources, Buckley said.
“Less supply means higher prices — that’s economics 101.”
He believes the Coalition’s nuclear strategy could increase electricity prices by 20-50 per cent over the next decade because of the need for more government intervention and funding to extend the life of coal plants.
Buckley said the GenCost report — produced by Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO — found power from nuclear could also be double the price of firmed renewables.
“Therefore power prices go up, not down,” he said.
GenCost looked at the levelised cost of electricity, which is the estimated price that would need to be charged so the generator could cover its costs including a return on investment.
It found electricity generated by large-scale nuclear would be $155/MWh (per megawatt hour) to $252/MWh.
Integrating renewables such as solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind into the grid, including the cost of storage and transmission lines, was estimated to be much cheaper, costing between $90/MWh and $100/MWh.
The GenCost report noted overseas electricity costs may not reflect the prices that could be charged in Australia because of differences in installation, maintenance and fuel costs.
Other countries may also be benefiting from older projects where the costs to build the power plant had already been recovered by investors or governments.
“Such prices are not available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia,” the report said.
Batteries will need to be ‘ripped down’ for nuclear
The Coalition plans to locate its nuclear power plants in the locations of old and retiring coal-fired power plants to “avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ system”.
An electricity grid with a large proportion of intermittent renewables requires many new transmission poles and wires, “all of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills”, Opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien has said.
But Buckley points out that most retired coal-fired power sites are already being used for new battery plants. This includes a 500-megawatt battery plant announced last year on the site of the old Liddell plant in NSW’s Hunter Valley.
Ted O’Brien and Peter Dutton are proposing nationalisation of private assets, and then they’re going to have to rip down the batteries that have just been built at billions of dollars in cost … in order to then wait for 20 years while they build their nuclear power plants,” he said.
“It’s a little bit farcical to me.”
An ambitious 13-year timeline
In a press release announcing its policy, O’Brien said large-scale nuclear would be built by 2037, in 13 years.
But the CSIRO has estimated a nuclear power plant in Australia would take at least 15 years to build.
Australia’s federal nuclear ban would have to be overturned and the government may also have to override several state-level bans
Site selection and acquisition, design, impact studies and environmental permits would then need to be completed before construction could even begin.
Buckley said getting the relevant planning approvals was a time-consuming hurdle for any energy project, let alone one that had never been done in Australia before.
Nuclear ‘will need to be refurbished after 30 years’
Dutton has said nuclear is “an investment for 80 years” and this longevity makes the technology superior to renewable sources of power such as wind energy.
“These nuclear plants can produce and provide 24/7 power for 80 to 100 years … wind turbines last 19 years, so you’ve got to cycle them in and out three or four times,” he told the Today show on 21 June.
Buckley said Coalition statements underestimated the life of renewable projects, noting that nuclear power plants needed to be refurbished after around 30 years.
Warranties on new solar modules now covered them for more than 20 years, he said. And those on batteries had doubled from 10 to 20 years.
“Most solar projects have a design life of 25 years, wind projects have a design life of 30,” he said.
Buckley said the price of refurbishment should also be included in the capital costs for nuclear, and so should decommissioning expenses, which can cost about $10 billion once the plant reaches the end of its life.
‘Who’s going to pay for other costs?’
Eventually, funding will also have to be found to store the nuclear waste generated, which has to be securely stored for tens of thousands of years.
“Who’s going to pay for 10,000 years of nuclear waste disposal?” Buckley said.
Even based purely on the initial construction cost, nuclear does not come out ahead.
Who’s going to pay for 10,000 years of nuclear waste disposal? Tim Buckley, Climate Energy Finance director
The GenCost report estimated the cost of a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia would be $8.6 billion for a 1,000kW plant built in 2023, although the first one would likely be much more expensive.
A small modular reactor (SMR) was estimated to be even more expensive, at $28.6 billion.
In comparison, onshore wind is estimated to cost $3 billion for 1000kW of generation, while large-scale solar PV is even cheaper, at $1.5 billion.
Costs for offshore wind rise to between $5.5 billion and $7.7 billion.
The capital cost for firming technologies such as batteries is separate, but — as mentioned above — the levelised cost of renewables is estimated to be $90-$100/MWh, even including the cost of storage and transmission lines.
Meanwhile, the levelised cost of nuclear is between $155-$252/MWh.
The Coalition hasn’t yet released costings for its nuclear plan, only saying they would come “very soon”.
Analysis from the Smart Energy Council suggests it could cost between $116-$600 billion to build seven nuclear reactors, and they would only supply 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy mix in 2050.
Michael Preuss, director of research infrastructure at Monash University’s faculty of engineering, has previously told SBS News that while the initial investment in nuclear is expensive, those upfront costs could be recovered.
“There’s a huge upfront investment and once they’re built and they start operating, they’re relatively inexpensive to operate and then you recoup the investment. But it takes a long time,” he said.
There will also be ongoing costs to buy the fuel required to run the nuclear power plant, something renewables can source for free.
Australian communities facing an un-insurable risk?
The Coalition has dismissed concerns about government funding of the plants, saying local communities would welcome the investment.
“You can imagine what this means to local communities, to mums and dads and their kids as they look to the future,” O’Brien told reporters on 19 June.
But Buckley said government funding was required because nuclear power plants were not commercially viable without taxpayer subsidies. He said no private company could afford the insurance risk of a nuclear catastrophe………………………..
Is the world embracing nuclear?
Dutton told Today on 21 June: “I think if you look at the top 20 economies of the world, Australia is the only one that hasn’t embraced or hasn’t signed up to nuclear.”
But Buckley believes this statement is misleading.
“America has closed more nuclear units in the last two decades than they’ve opened so how is that embracing nuclear?”……………………………………………………….
He said other countries that had embraced nuclear did not have the wind and solar resources that Australia did.
“Why would Australia go and choose the most expensive source of electricity with massive water consumption issues, with massive site rehabilitation and massive waste disposal risks, when we don’t need to?
“When there’s a lower cost, commercially proven technology today?” https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/hidden-costs-cheaper-energy-farcical-locations-debunking-the-hype-around-nuclear/7rd5ewmbr
TODAY. The pen is mightier than the sword.
What made me ponder on this was reading an article about the Vogtle Nuclear Power Station. Not that this article contained anything new. really.
Anyone who has bothered to take an interest in this station would probably know that it is the largest power station in the USA, and the only one with 4 reactors. It was designed and eventually built by Westinghouse (which went bankrupt in the process). Southern Nuclear, and later Georgia Power took over the costs, helped by federal loan guarantees up to $12 billion. It was expanded over 11 years at a cost of $36.8 billion.
So – reams have been published about all this. Noticeably high in jargon, are stories about Vogtle’s energy benefits, how it “helps climate action”. There are also many articles criticising the costs, and financial arrangements, and some of these also give complicated details, that are not easy to read.
So – today’s article? “Welcome to Planet Vogtle! The Lessons of Georgia’s Nuclear Boondoggle.”
Well, it is written in easily readable and witty language. Some of the writer’s ideas are novel – but true, too! – “A global race is on to see who will host the next nuclear disaster, and as always the U.S.A. is determined to take the lead” “ record-breaking profits for utility companies, record-breaking power bills for the rest of us.” “nuclear waste factories like Vogtle “
But within the forceful and witty language, the writer has demolished the nuclear industry’s claims of benefits – about being “economic” “clean” “safe” “low emissions” and noted its euphemisms – like “disposal” of nuclear wastes.
The article actually compresses “Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States,” a 35-page report exposing the political maneuvering and cynical profiteering that made the Vogtle project a “success.”
So – although I did enjoy the writing style – this is one article that does both – gives the information, and a bit of fun to read. And the writer sure isn’t scared to give his opinion! Which is good fun. I’m sick of everyone worthily trying to give “balance”
If you’ve waded through stuff about the nuclear industry, whether the stuff is pro or con, it is so refreshing to come upon something that is a pleasure to read.
And if you had any doubts about the whole pro nuclear push being crooked – this Plant Vogtle article should clear up those doubts.
ABOUT THE Submissions – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion
I started out to copy and publish the Submissions – from the Australian Parliament website – https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
I expected that there would be very few
Even the Parliament, let alone the public, has not been properly informed about this planned Treaty : Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion.
The vast majority of Australians, and most of the Members of Parliament would have been unaware of the government Inquiry into this, and its call for Submissions.
No wonder the government liked it all to be pretty hush-hush. This Treaty will surely go down in history as the Albanese government’s biggest botch-up. Mind you, it all was started in an equally quiet and uninformed way by the previous Scott Morrison government’s disastrous AUKUS pact. At the time, the then Labor Opposition had less than 24 hours to decide on whether to support it. Afraid of looking “weak on China” – they made the wrong decision.
While the media concentrated on the “important” stuff – Paris Olympics, celebrities, fashion, and some real news, – the new AUKUS plan was not in it.
Anyway, surprisingly, the number of submissions published is now up to 191. I am not able to publish them all. But I’m going through them, to find out their themes , and to see in anyone actually supports this very odd Treaty.
News countering the nuclear-military-industrial-political complex this week
Some bits of good news: UNICEF has helped reduce child mortality all over the world by working to reach the most vulnerable children, everywhere. After 9 Years of Work, CaliforniaTribe Finally Seas Traditional Land Named a Marine Reserve Bigger Than Yosemite- picturedCoho Anchorage, part of the proposed reserve
****************************
TOP STORIES.
Zelensky’s Last Hail Mary Gets Off to Rocky Start.
Biden’s Legacy: The Decline of Arms Control and Disarmament.
How to Make a ‘War Reserve’ Nuclear Bomb.
**********************************
Climate. Rich countries silencing climate protest while preaching about rights elsewhere, says study.
Noel’s notes. What is behind all the drama of long range missiles for Ukraine to send to Russia? An avalanche of objections to the latest proposed AUKUS nuclear treaty.
**************************************
AUSTRALIA.
The tangled nuclear web of lies and half-truths – can we believe that Australia will refuse to take USA toxic wastes? David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?
Albanese has a second chance with AUKUS.
Protecting the Merchants of Death: The Police Effort for Land Forces 2024. The lucrative charity, yes CHARITY, running the Land Forces weapons expo. From the archives :The fake charity AMDA Foundation is exposed by Michael West Media’s Michelle Fahy. More Australian news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/09/14/australian-nuclear-news-headlines-9-16-september-2/
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| ATROCITIES. United Nations relief agency Says 6 Workers Among at Least 18 Killed in Israeli Strikes on Gaza School. Israel kills 40 in Gaza “humanitarian zone”. | CLIMATE. US Militarism Is a Leading Cause of the Climate Catastrophe. Blackwater – a land in transition. |
- Why nuclear power plant are so expensive, especially in the West.
- Claims that UK’s Wylfa mega-nuclear site is ‘under-review’ with potential switch to mini-nuke plants.
- Support for nuclear is “money down the drain” – Rystad. Why SMRs Are Taking Longer Than Expected to Deploy. NuScale Power Is Great. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Buy It.
| ENERGY. Nuclear vs Energy Storage. Die Welt predicts a mass exodus of people from Ukraine in winter. | ENVIRONMENT. Somerset campaigners celebrate as EDF Energy U-turns on planned Hinkley Point C saltmarshes. Water: Southern boom town that is just 24 miles away from dangerous canyon contaminated by plutonium | ETHICS and RELIGION. Richard Silverstein: Israel, ‘The Far Right Extremist State That I Can No Longer Identify With |
| EVENTS: PETITION Call off World War III | HEALTH. Christopher Busby: New study: the cause of the cancer epidemic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMauRgvWnII | INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Bloc Québécois backs First Nation fighting nuclear waste site. |
| POLITICS. Sane foreign policy biggest loser in Harris/Biden debate. Biden still slouching toward war, possibly nuclear, with Russia over Ukraine. UK Government considering scrapping Wylfa plans and 24GW nuclear capacity target. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Alarm in UK and US over possible Iran-Russia nuclear deal. US and UK press Ukraine before allowing Russia strikes. ‘Blinken, Get Lost!,’ Says Polish MEP Grzegorz Braun. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2HKsBGSlqfI Ukraine will join NATO – Blinken. The Armageddon Agenda. |
| PUBLIC OPINION. Opposed to Netanyahu, two-thirds of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. | SAFETY. Dounreay placed on ‘special measures’ over wide-ranging safety concerns. Letter to New First Minister over South Wales Nuclear Overflights. ‘Its been a battle’: Neighbors worry about Palisades Nuclear Plant restarting. Japan, to make the biggest mistake in history: nuclear energy with water, and risk of explosion. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Democracy Dumped in Cumbria. Nuclear Dump Under the Irish Sea Here We Come?! UNLESS… Boris Johnson goes into business with Steve Bannon, Charlotte Owen and a uranium entrepreneur. Federal Conflict Rules Would Have Barred New Brunswick, Ontario Cabinet Ministers from New Corporate Posts, Expert Says. | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. India considers joining Russia, China to build nuclear plant on Moon. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Flamanville EPR shutdown prompts fresh questions over reactor design. | URANIUM. World’s largest uranium miner warns Ukraine war makes it harder to supply west.. |
WAR and CONFLICT. Putin Warns of ‘Direct’ War as US Mulls Letting Ukraine Use Long-Range Western Missiles .
Ukrainian Tipping Points: UPDATE 3 .x
White House finalizing plans to expand where Ukraine can hit inside Russia. UK approves Ukrainian missile strikes deep inside Russia – Guardian ‘Let’s Just Fight’: How Britain Prefers War Over Peace in Ukraine.
CNN Shared A Glimpse Of Just How Bad Everything Has Become For Ukraine. The NATO/Ukraine Defeat in Kursk (and Beyond). Ukrainian Tipping Points: UPDATE 2.
Neocon Queen Victoria Nuland ADMITS Not Wanting to End Ukraine War Diplomatically.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Playing with nuclear fire. Biden administration split over Ukraine’s use of US weapons inside Russia.
Pentagon orders study of potential nuclear strike in Eastern Europe. Pentagon orders simulation of consequences of nuclear weapons use in Eastern Europe and Russia.
UK sent Kyiv large supplies of old military equipment, watchdog finds.
The Public Interest and Indigenous Rights in South Australia must not be compromised by an untenable Defence imposition of AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on the Woomera Area
David Noonan’s Submission to the Review of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coexistence Framework
30 August 2024
Contents:
Introduction
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
3 There is an onus on this Woomera Area Review to see it doesn’t add to a sad history of nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests in our State.………………….
4 Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump …………………..
5 Defence is already targeting the Woomera Area as a potential region to site an imposed
AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump ……………………………….
6 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes …………………….
7 Is US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera? ……………………………
8 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks ……………….
9 Recommendations
10 Discussion
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war
11 As to my Relevant Background
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
Minister Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early 2024, on
a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he saying
“obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the
‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as
national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).
Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal
site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
This Review must respect the SA public and Traditional Owners rights to full disclosure of
potential nuclear risks and impacts in advance of any decisions, legislation and process to
impose AUKUS N-waste onto community in the Woomera Area or anywhere else in SA.
Defence can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ to operate in the Woomera Area while failing to
inform affected community of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the cultural and environmental impacts,
and socio-economic impacts they may face through siting for AUKUS nuclear waste storage.
Defence has so far denied South Australians their ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
The Woomera Area Review must understand that South Australians will not accept federal
Labor and Defence undemocratic imposition of AUKUS nuclear wastes in our State.
If federal Labor go ahead with storage of AUKUS nuclear wastes in SA, it will have to over-ride
State Law to impose the dump. AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Safety of the People of SA.
Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the Safety and Welfare of the people of
South Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Reforming Defence Legislation Review also proposes to take on Defence Act powers to
override State legislation to ‘provide certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities. My
input and Recommendations to the Defence Review called for transparency on these issues:
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste
disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence must declare whether
the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be respected OR is intended to
be over-ridden to impose a Navy High-Level nuclear waste storage or disposal site on
‘remote’ lands and unwilling community in South Australia. (April 2023, p.7 & Rec 6-7)
I refer the Review’s consideration to “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons from
Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific
Leadership Network (January 2024). The Defence AUKUS agenda needs to learn these lessons…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Recommendations
These Recommendations No.1-5 comprise public interest disclosures that must be required
from Defence to facilitate an informed public Review of the future of the Woomera Area:
Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump
This Review must respect affected Communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the
Defence imposed nuclear risks they face in intended High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear
weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities.
1.1 The Review must call on Defence to publicly disclose which Australian regions and
Indigenous Peoples are currently under threat of imposed siting and compulsory land
acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste dump, and which – if any – existing Defence
lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared.
1.2 The Review must make Defence become accountable over the future and fate of the
Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and
disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023). Noting the
Woomera Area is currently subject to a Defence ‘Review’: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose
and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – read AUKUS requirements.
1.3 Defence must become publicly accountable and declare its intension to over-ride the SA
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in an AUKUS Bill now before
Parliament (Sec.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws”): to impose an AUKUS nuclear
waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree in federal Regulations.
This Defence agenda to impose nuclear waste storage in SA also involves Defence over-ride of
the SA Environment Protection Act 1993 and over-ride of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
2 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes
The Woomera Area Review must respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick
Dodson and act in accordance with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov
2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
2.1 This Review must seek an explanation from the federal Labor Gov as to whether they will
commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands;
OR if Federal Labor intends to claim a sanction to over-ride UNDRIP and to impose a hazardous AUKUS nuclear waste dump against the potential express wishes of Traditional Owners.
3 US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera?
The Woomera Area Review must recognise the AUKUS Agreement’s proposed importation of US
origin military High-Level nuclear wastes sourced in 10–12-year-old US Navy nuclear reactors in
second hand US Virginia Class N-Subs that will require perpetual storage in Australia:
This Review must seek a full explanation of how Defence Minister Marles claims to be able
to manage a globally unprecedented task in siting and perpetual storage & disposal of
intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes from second-hand US Virginia N-Subs.
It is not credible for the Review to overly rely on claims by AUKUS proponent Minister Marles.
3.1 The Review should call on Minister Marles to explain the incompatibility between the AUKUS
Agreement’s transfer of US origin Virginia Class N-Sub nuclear wastes to Australia, effective
importation of nuclear wastes sourced from the US, and the pre AUKUS Federal Labor Policy
commitment in the ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) to oppose overseas waste:
Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear
waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
4 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks.
There is an onus on this Review to require public $ Costings and an evidentiary basis on:
- the liability $ Cost consequent in required capability and facilities for in perpetuity High-
Level nuclear waste storage and geological waste disposal at the Woomera Area; - whether the $ Cost of High-Level nuclear waste storage and claimed geological disposal
is included in – OR is additional to – the public Cost of AUKUS at approx. A$368 billion.
These unstated, kept secret, liability $ Costs must be in the order of at least A$10’s of billions.
4.1 In the public interest the Review must require a full exposition on the array of nuclear waste
risks the AUKUS Agreement exposes the Woomera Area to and grants the US Indemnity over.
“Indemnity 22. The Agreement requires Australia to indemnify the UK and the US
against any liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims) arising
out of, related to, or resulting from nuclear risks (risks attributable to the radioactive,
toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of materials) … transferred pursuant to the
Agreement (Article IV(E)).” (In the National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14)
5. The Review must be transparent on Defence’s roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
Our survival is at stake, ex-Ambassador to China, Ross Garnaut has stated (20 August 2024):
“America would be damaged by war with China over the status of Taiwan, but, short of a
major nuclear exchange debilitating both great powers, its sovereignty would not be at
risk. Australia’s would be. Indeed, I doubt that Australia could survive as a sovereign
entity the isolation from most of Asia that would be likely to follow anything other than a
decisive and quick US victory in a war in which our military was engaged.”
Discussion:
Defence imposed AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile
material on all future generations of Australians is untenable and will be opposed at Woomera.
This Review must at least be able to facilitate informed public consideration of the future of the
Woomera Area through required full disclosures from Defence to the set of pre-requisite public
interest Recommendations No.1-5 presented in this public input.
Australian regional communities and Indigenous groups have a ‘Right to Know’ who is being
currently targeted for siting and assessment of an AUKUS nuclear waste storage / dump.
The Review must realise an answer from federal Labor over whether the UNDRIP championed
by Senator Patrick Dodson will be complied with OR over-ridden to impose AUKUS N-wastes.
Three years into AUKUS the failure to respect affected communities ‘Right to Know’ is evidence
Defence is on a seriously wrong track and is undermining trust in governance in Australia.
There is an onus is on this Review to investigate the array of serious nuclear waste risks to be
imposed on Woomera through AUKUS and subject to an Indemnity to favour US interests.
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
It is arguable that AUKUS and N-Subs bring Australia closer to a devastating war between the
US and China, including likely strikes on Australia with a real risk of nuclear weapons strikes.
For instance, the Review should consider “AUKUS: The worst defence and foreign policy
decision our country has made” by ex-Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans (17 August 2024):
“… Four, the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear
propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high. Not
only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B52 base; not only the conversion
of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth now join Pine Gap
and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a nuclear target …
Australia’s no-holds-barred embrace of AUKUS is more likely than not to prove one
of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made, not only
putting at profound risk our sovereign independence, but generating more risk than
reward for the very national security it promises to protect.”…………………………………………………………..
David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?
Federal Labor has failed to inform the SA community of the Health risks they face in imposed N-Subs at Port Adelaide and failed to carry out required nuclear accident Health Impact Studies.
AUKUS aims Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand N-Subs that are to be up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes that are also weapons usage fissile materials – and remain as Bomb Fuel long after decommissioning.
AUKUS will aim to compulsorily acquire and declare a High-Level nuclear waste dump site, with override of State laws through this Bill, long before the 2032 first purchase of a second-hand US N-Sub.
This Inquiry should respect and investigate the ‘Right to Know’ of affected Communities and Indigenous People facing federal imposed nuclear risks in an AUKUS Agreement requiring HighLevel nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities:
It is not credible for the JSCT to over rely on an AUKUS proponent in Defence Minister Marles.
Submission no. 154
Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the AUKUS 2.0 Agreement:
‘Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion’.
Public Input by Mr David J. Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner 1 September 2024 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
RE: National Interest, Public Safety and Indigenous Consent are compromised as the Agreement imposes N-Subs risks and untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on all future generations of Australians
Dear Secretary
This Inquiry into ‘the Agreement’ (Washington, dated 4 August) goes to fundamental matters of public interest through the powers, imprimatur and pathway this AUKUS Agreement provides to an unfolding Federal Labor agenda to impose nuclear powered submarine (N-Subs) risks and nuclear reactor wastes (N-wastes), with serious consequences for Civil Society and Indigenous People in Australia.
Please consider this Public Submission, the Recommendations provided (see p.10-12) and Discussion (p.13).
I also request an opportunity to give Evidence as a Witness in a Hearing (see my Relevant Background, p.14).
This public input focuses on serious N-Sub reactor accident risks and N-waste impacts due to this AUKUS Agreement:
First: N-Subs inherent nuclear reactor accident risks & impacts are imposed on Australian Port communities without their informed consent, while the US is granted Indemnity.
Port communities face Evacuation and persons may require ‘decontamination’ and medical treatment, while children require Stable Iodine Tablets to lessen the risk of Thyroid cancer.
Second: untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile materials are recklessly imposed as an uncosted liability on all future generations.
Continue readingChristopher Busby: New study: the cause of the cancer epidemic
15 Sept 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMauRgvWnII
Dr Busby presents the results of a study which he carried out to identify the cause of the cancer epidemic which began in 1980. He compared cancer death rates between high fallout and low fallout States in the USA looking for an effect which identified the period of birth of the ten year age groups.
The result showed an astonishing cancer risk effect centred around the peak years of atmospheric test fallout, 1955 to 1965. The result showed a 50% excess risk of dying of cancer in the 55-64 year olds who were born during the fallout years. A earlier version of the study, whic he carried out in 2021 was presented in the journal BMJ Oncology in 2023 and can be found online. Link is https://bmjoncology.bmj.com/content/e…
What this means, he explains, is that it is likely that there is a significant probability that you, or anyone you know who has developed cancer, is a victim of the atmospheric test fallout contamination of Strontium-90 and Uranium-238. The total number of victims of this exceeds 100 million.
He says that those who have been anticipating World War should realise that it has already happened. It was the war of the nuclear military complex against humanity, as Dr John Gofman once said. Further videos in this series Science and reality will take this matter further. He belatedly apologises for placing the high fallout States in the west; they are of course in the south east of USA
COMMENT. Very important. In Australia, through the1960s and even later, repeated bursts of atmospheric fallout from the French nuclear tests . Rainfall from the East was tested for radiation – but the results were kept secret. Prof Ernest Titterton was in charge, and he cancelled the tests anyway. Interesting to study the cancer rates of East coast populations exposed at that time.
FBI Sued For Withholding Files On Assange And WikiLeaks
Kevin Gosztola, Sep 12, 2024, https://thedissenter.org/fbi-sued-for-withholding-files-on-assange-and-wikileaks/
“With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people,” Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent.
The civil liberties organization Defending Rights and Dissent sued the FBI and United States Justice Department for withholding records on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
“For nearly a decade and a half, we’ve been trying to get at the truth about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks,” declared Chip Gibbons, the policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent.
Gibbons added, “With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people.”
On June 25, 2024, U.S. government attorneys submitted a plea agreement [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after Assange agreed to plead guilty to one conspiracy charge under the U.S. Espionage Act.
Assange was released on bail from London’s Belmarsh prison, where he had been jailed for over five years while fighting a U.S. extradition request. He flew on a charter flight to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory where a plea hearing was held.
The plea agreement marked the end of a U.S. campaign to target and suppress Assange and WikiLeaks that spanned 14 years and first intensified after WikiLeaks published documents from U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning that exposed crimes committed in U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as U.S. complicity in human rights abuses in dozens of countries around the world.
“As soon as we began publishing newsworthy stories about US war crimes in 2010, we know the US government responded to what was one of most consequential journalistic revelations of the 21st century by spying on and trying to criminalize First Amendment-protected journalism,” stated WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Hrafnsson continued, “While WikiLeaks has fought for transparency, the U.S. government has cloaked its war on journalism in secrecy. That’s why Defending Rights & Dissent’s lawsuit is so important, as it will help unmask the FBI’s efforts to criminalize journalism.”
On June 27, Defending Rights and Dissent requested [PDF] “all records created, maintained, or in the custody of the FBI that mention or reference: WikiLeaks; Julian Assange.”
The FBI separated the request into two requests—one for files mentioning “WikiLeaks,” one for files mentioning Julian Assange. And by August 19, the organization was informed by the FBI that it would take around five and a half years (2,010 days) to “complete action.”
Previously, on June 22, 2021, Defending Rights and Dissent submitted a nearly identical request. It took the FBI two years to respond and notify the organization that the documents could not be provided because there was a “law enforcement” proceeding that was pending against Assange.
The FBI became involved in pursuing an investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks in December 2010.
In 2011, FBI agents and prosecutors flew to Iceland to investigate what they claimed was a cyber attack against Iceland’s government systems. But as Iceland Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson told the Associated Press in 2013, it became clear that the FBI agents and prosecutors came to Iceland to “frame” Assange and WikiLeaks.
The FBI was interested in interviewing Sigurdur Thordarson, a serial liar and sociopath who embezzled funds from the WikiLeaks store and sexually preyed on underage boys. As I recount in my book “Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange,” Thordarson subsequently became an FBI informant or cooperating witness.
“When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police,” Jónasson added.
A little more than a year before the U.S. government’s prosecution against Assange collapsed, the FBI approached three journalists who had worked with Assange but had a falling-out with him. Each refused to help U.S. prosecutors further their attack on journalism.
“The decision to respond to reporting on U.S. war crimes with foreign counterintelligence investigations, criminal prosecutions, and dirty tricks continues to cast a dark shadow over our First Amendment right to press freedom,” Gibbons said.
Gibbons concluded, “We will work tirelessly to see that all files documenting how the FBI criminalized and investigated journalism are made available to the public.”
Albanese has a second chance with AUKUS
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters.
it is America which now sets our defence policy,
By Mike Gilligan, Sep 14, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/albanese-has-a-second-chance-with-aukus
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Minister RIchard Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
The weekend Sydney Morning Herald (7 September) front page said: “Australia key to new US security scheme” by Peter Hartcher in Washington.
Hartcher is known as part of the Herald’s China-threat scare in March 2023, telling Australians that we face war with China within three years. Today that leaves just 18 months at the outside before war breaks out. Clearly ill-founded, it was a sensationalist attempt to panic Australians into embracing America’s planning for conflict with China.
The Americans are still at it, of course. And Hartcher is their messenger – boasting that his access in Washington is special because his interview at the White House is the only one which President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has given to Australian media in his 3-1/2 years in the role. Hartcher followed up with another report a few days later explaining that the Americans are looking for another big technology project to foist on Australia. In a hurry, because progress against China has been too slow.
Sullivan wants the new scheme stitched up before Biden leaves office. And by the way, Australia must spend more on defence for its role against China.
America is accustomed to dealing with its allies in that way. Europe’s NATO forces always have been shaped by US close oversight. Its member states are regularly hectored to spend more on defence against a common enemy. Sullivan is treating Australia just as he would another NATO ally. Without a second thought. And Australia’s leaders have fallen into line obsequiously.
Again it has to be said – Australia is not like the NATO countries. NATO was set up in response to an agreed security threat, the USSR.
We have no security threat. No Australian Government has declared, much less demonstrated, that China is a security threat. We had decades of understanding with the United States that our defence spending should be directed to Australia’s own defence with our own forces. Without relying on America. In situations where Australia supported the US militarily overseas, it would be with forces which we held for our own priorities. Nothing special would be done for America. America agreed. That was Australia’s independence in action.
It worked for 35 years until President Barack Obama visited in 2010 effectively requiring Australia to do an about-face. Signalling that henceforth Australia’s defence would be done America’s way.
The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
It is Australia’s experience with the US itself which defines the risk. No need to look elsewhere for examples. Ever since the ANZUS treaty was signed in 1953, America has told Australia not to rely on it if attacked. Again in contrast to NATO, ANZUS deliberately avoids American commitment to assisting Australia if attacked. It was the proof of that American reluctance (over Indonesia) and the Vietnam tragedy which led to Australia facing reality – bipartisanly adopting a self- reliant defence policy in 1976. The risk of not embracing self- reliance was deemed intolerable. To not pursue self-reliance feckless. And that initiative came with America’s enthusiastic endorsement, for 35 years.
Today it suits America to use Australia’s forces for its own ends against China. Yet it won’t commit to our security by dignifying us with a genuine treaty. The obvious risk is that America’s interest in Asia will decline, for many reasons. Then Australia will be left with defences of little use for our own need. What good is an island-hopping army dependent on US Marines, who have gone home? It’s been said before. But the profound risk hasn’t sunk in.
At the business end, the Albanese Government is spending heavily to dump Australia ever deeper into the risk predicament. Marles flaunts the financial cost. Noting that the Defence budget was $48 billion in 2022-23, the Albanese Government will raise it to $55.7 billion in 2024-25:
“These increases will see annual Defence spending almost double over the next ten years to $100 billion in the financial year 2033-34. Taken over a 10-year period, it will be the largest sustained growth in the Defence budget since the Second World War.”
This is the spending which Sullivan says should be increased. Australia’s defence budget of $58 billion is the same as Japan’s, also accelerating because of US pressure.
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. Sam Roggeveen in his elegant essay “The Jakarta Option” describes the influences which render Marles’ strategy foolhardy. He presents evidence of a structural shift in warfare which renders maritime attack on an opponent’s territory increasingly hazardous. The exchange ratio of maritime forces to land-based weapons has swung heavily to the defender ie China in this case. Marles strategy of “projection” is squarely on the wrong side of this asymmetry.
So, what to do about this latest American “initiative”? Albanese tells the tale of having just one day to consider AUKUS when in opposition. He now has the full resources of Cabinet and can set his own timetable. He can require Marles to talk to the risks and costs to Australia of his National Strategy of power projection. And this latest directive from Washington. Ministers, especially the treasurer, should work through the risks, costs and consequences so that they genuinely know what Australia is being led into at vast cost.
Back to Hartcher. He unwittingly does us a service, demonstrating yet again that Australians have to rely on the candour of American leaders to see through the murky verbiage of Defence Ministers, confirming that it is America which now sets our defence policy, down to project detail. Hartcher will have something to brag about when he has the level of access in Beijing which he claims in Washington.
Labor claims Aukus nuclear waste dumping issue just a Greens scare campaign
the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
Legislation before Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated
Guardian, Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, 13 Sept 24
The Albanese government has bowed to pressure to close an Aukus loophole, insisting that the newly revealed changes will ensure Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste from US and UK submarines.
The Greens argued the government’s latest amendments did not go far enough and it was becoming increasingly clear the Aukus security pact was “sinking”.
But Labor MPs later told the parliament Australia would not become “a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries” and argued such claims were part of “a scare campaign”.
The legislation before the Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated. It includes the creation of a new statutory agency, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.
The bill – in its original form – talked about “managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an Aukus submarine”, which it defined broadly as Australian, UK or US submarines.
This prompted concerns from critics that the bill could pave the way for Australia to eventually store nuclear waste from other countries, regardless of a political commitment from the incumbent government not to do so.
In May, a Labor-chaired inquiry called for a legislative safeguard to specifically rule out accepting high-level nuclear waste from the US and the UK.
New amendments circulated by the government on Wednesday include a “prohibition on storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The wording says the regulator “must not issue a licence” for the storage or disposal in Australia “of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The government is also amending the bill to prevent appearances of conflicts of interest at the new naval nuclear safety regulator.
The legislation will ensure anyone who has worked in the Australian defence force or the Department of Defence in the previous 12 months cannot be appointed to be the director general or deputy of the new regulator.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, said the amendments would “reaffirm the government’s already-established commitment that Australia will not be responsible for the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the US, UK or other countries”.
He said the government would “continue to build the foundations to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”.
Greens say changes ‘far from clear’
But the Greens defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the amendments were “far from clear”.
“The Albanese Labor government tried to sneak through a loophole that would allow the UK and US to dump their nuclear waste in Australia,” Shoebridge said.
“We called the government out and people around Australia pushed back, now Albanese is quickly putting through a half-measure to shut everyone up.”
Shoebridge said the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
“Everyone can see Aukus is sinking,” he said.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
He told the parliament’s federation chamber that the government’s new amendments were intended to “put the matter beyond doubt”.
A fellow Labor MP, Rob Mitchell, said: “We will not be, as some have suggested, a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries. And it’s important that we put that scare campaign to bed very quickly and very clearly.”……………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/11/labor-aukus-nuclear-waste-loophole-greens
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 