Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

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.

October 17, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Congressional report suggests Australia could dump plans to acquire AUKUS nuclear submarines

“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,”

“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership – Greens Senator David Shoebridge

ABC News, By Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene and State Political Reporter Rory McClare, 18 Oct 24

In short

An influential US research body has published a report arguing Australia could invest in long-range bombers and other capabilities instead of nuclear-powered submarines.

The report says there is “little indication” that “rigorous” analysis was conducted on whether there were more cost-effective options.

What’s next?

Greens senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent, said the AUKUS partnership looked like a “surrender” of Australian interests.

Research prepared for the United States Congress argues Australia could abandon its $368 billion AUKUS push to buy nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), outlining several alternatives including US owned boats serving both nations.

According to the report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), billions of Australian dollars could instead be diverted to military capabilities for this country and the US, such as missiles and B-21 long-range bombers.

Under the AUKUS Pillar 1 plan, US and British nuclear submarines will rotate out of Western Australia from 2027, before Australia buys up to five second-hand Virginia class boats in the 2030s, and then begins constructing a new fleet known as SSN-AUKUS.

In the 105-page report, a number of policy options are presented including Australia no longer purchasing US submarines but instead having American boats perform missions on its behalf, while still continuing to design and build the SSN-AUKUS fleet.

“An alternative to Pillar 1 as currently structured would be a US-Australia military division of labour under which US SSNs would perform both US and Australian SSN missions while Australia invested in military capabilities for performing non-SSN missions for both Australia and the United States,” the report reads.

“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities — such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft.

“Under this variation, the size of the US SSN force would eventually be expanded above previously planned levels by eight boats (i.e., the planned eventual number of SSNs that Australia had planned to acquire).”

Using stark language, the report warns that the costs of AUKUS Pillar 1 for Australia could “reduce, perhaps significantly, funding within Australia’s military budget for other Australian military capabilities” particularly if the project’s budget blows out.

“If this were to occur, there could be a net negative impact on Australia’s overall military capabilities for deterring potential Chinese aggression,” the report says.

The CRS report claims no alternatives were ever considered by AUKUS partners and concludes by diverted spending elsewhere it would help “create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.

“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project … an analysis of alternatives (AOA) or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.

Proposals a ‘strategic surrender’

Greens Senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent of AUKUS, says the proposals outlined in the congressional report appeared more like “a strategic surrender than a partnership”.

“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,” he said.

“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership.

“For the US, the whole AUKUS deal always had at its heart US access to Australian real estate for their submarines, bombers and marines, with any marginal additional Australian capacity being very much secondary.”………..  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-17/report-suggests-australia-dump-aukus-nuclear-submarine-plans/104486868—

October 17, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Inside the room that loves Nuclear Ted

The Opposition’s fission frontman Ted O’Brien was in his element at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear conference last week, feeling the love from a hot-to-trot audience swallowing every word from a smooth-talking messiah . Freelance Journalist Murray Hogarth was there and imbibed the vibe — but not the glow-in-the-dark Kool-Aid.

by MURRAY HOGARTH., https://thepolitics.com.au/inside-the-rooms-that-love-nuclear-ted/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF8E1hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeNqjz022ugJko-9VboOWN2DC-94pA7Y5ifdvNwZFTZ_YaikPJPpvYhkNw_aem_dxORDyGfCPnc4VD223hWhA 16 Oct 24

Ted O’Brien MP was confecting political outrage, playing to Australia’s ultimate pro-nuclear audience in Sydney last Friday. The day before, the Albanese Labor government had sprung a pre-election surprise on the Liberal-National coalition, and O’Brien as its nuclear torchbearer, when it forced through a tactical parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy.

“It was hard not to be a little bit suspicious, not just because there’d been zero engagement on this,” he confided, eager to share his take on the backstory to how the Coalition had been politically blindsided and outmuscled.

O’Brien was in high dudgeon about the inquiry’s terms of reference, but mainly about its committee having four Labor government members versus two from the Coalition, a two-to-one ratio, plus one from the crossbench, a teal. That’s a clear government majority, so official committee reports will say what it wants, which is realpolitik at work. But to O’Brien it was a desperate government “very clearly trying to weaponise the parliamentary system to kill the idea that Australia should include nuclear energy as part of its mix”. 

Of course, hypocrisy is quite the thing in politics. It turns out the last parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy in 2019, which was chaired by O’Brien, and which supported partial lifting of Australia’s long-standing nuclear energy ban, was even more dominated by the then Coalition government — 5-2 also plus a single teal.

The Coalition under PM Scott Morrison then squibbed it on running a go-nuclear policy at the 2022 elections, which it lost to Labor. Yet, as the opposition, it now expects a Labor government to overturn the nuclear ban that the Coalition introduced in 1998, under the conservative leadership of PM John Howard.

Nothing for O’Brien to melt down over here. But don’t let facts get in the way of a convenient story.

Smug, glib, righteous and on the Right

O’Brien approaches a speaking platform with a radioactive level of smugness and glibness that makes me feel queasy to the core. Perhaps that’s because I’ve been overexposed to him in the past six months as I’ve tracked the emerging nuclear story: three live speeches and seemingly endless videos and television interviews. His own productions. 7.30. Insiders. Four Corners. Sky News on loop. 

A committed spruiker, in an Americanised preachy showman kind of way, the ambitious O’Brien is both righteous and on the Right. To paraphrase him: nuclear is vital to our future energy mix and to achieving net zero. Labor’s 100% renewables can’t do it. Blah blah blah. Oh, and we’ll make public the costs and other key details “in due course”.

Last Friday, in contrast to my gut feeling, there was love vibing in the room when O’Brien returned to his people at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear event, the annual conference of the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA). Among this fraternity, he’s Nuclear Ted, the reactor-evangelising federal Liberal from Queensland who’s putting the fission back into the politics of energy in Australia, with a touch of frisson too for this audience.

It’s a pro-nuke constituency that has been in the Australian political wilderness seems like forever, but at least since the 1960s. Now a smooth-talking messiah has emerged, vowing to lead it to its promised land: a nuclear Australia. 

If you’ve been thinking it’s mainly renewables-hating, climate-denying National Party political malcontents who are behind the Coalition’s plans — which include prolonging coal and expanding gas generation — think again.

Friends in high places 

ANA conferences are where corporate big nuke and its international and local lobbyists meet Australia’s nuclear true believers. Weirdly, however, this gathering of 200 or so delegates has the Australian government as its long-standing principal sponsor. That’s right. The Albanese Labor government is sponsoring a platform for O’Brien, its would-be nuclear energy policy nemesis, to attack the government. And unsurprisingly he keeps coming back to do just that. It’s almost like the government wants O’Brien out there, talking his talk.

The government’s sponsorship comes via its main nuclear advisory agency, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the nation’s only reactor, a research and medical isotopes facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The other event sponsors include the Canadian nuclear engineering powerhouse AtkinsRéalis, and the Australian lobbying outfit SMR Nuclear Technologies.

ANSTO definitely isn’t meant to play politics, challenge policies of the government of the day, or otherwise advocate for nuclear energy. So it’s worth pointing out that the ANA’s president, and the conference’s main host, Dr Mark Ho, is a senior ANSTO scientist in his day job, and the event’s key organiser, Dr John Harries, is former ANSTO, as are many in the ANA orbit.

Beyond the conference, the ANA is increasingly involved in promoting nuclear energy. It and Ho helped organise the Navigating Nuclear forum in May, where O’Brien was a surprise guest speaker after it had been promoted as being “free of politics”. 

The Nuclear for Australia campaign thanked Ho for joining its first public event in Lithgow — one of the Coalition’s targeted communities for nuclear reactors — several weeks ago, and Ho was billed as a speaker at an ultra-conservative, anti-renewables, pro-nuclear forum in western Sydney in September where Barnaby Joyce was a pop-up speaker, as previously reported in The Politics, before Harries stepped in to replace him.

I missed Lithgow, but I was at the Navigating Nuclear and western Sydney events. Hence my delicate stomach.

The Coalition is all over this

O’Brien gave a keynote at the ANA’s conference last year too, lambasting the Albanese Labor government then as well. His National Party colleague Dr David Gillespie MP, who spoke at the end of last Friday’s event, has been a regular at these conferences since 2018. Gillespie used the 2022 conference as a springboard for pro-nuclear lobbying through his chairmanship of the Coalition-dominated Parliamentary Friends of Nuclear Industries. 

With O’Brien, they played a key role in shaping Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s headland nuclear energy policy announcements in mid-2023. Indeed, O’Brien passed on Dutton’s greetings to last Friday’s conference, and indicated Dutton’s wish to attend a future event “in due course”. 

The irony of this phrase choice may have escaped O’Brien in the moment. But he and Dutton are constantly promising the media and the Australian public that they will announce the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy costs and other details “in due course”. Thus far there is no sign of them.

As the day-long conference played out last Friday, it became more and more clear this wasn’t just a political speaker and an audience with a common interest. It’s more like they are collaborators, private sector interests included, working not just for a nuclear Australia but for a global nuclear renaissance. 

One of the main industry sponsor presenters, for example, mentioned a recent economic assessment it had undertaken looking at nuclear generation for the NSW Hunter region that “isn’t public”, saying that “hopefully David and Ted can use that going forward”. Very cosy. It’s all very reciprocal and transactional. The kind of thing which Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed master of the deal turned political leader, might applaud.


It’s a fair bet that if Trump returns to the US presidency after next month’s election the Americans will be all over Australia to buy its nuclear energy technologies and services — a number of which were showcased at the 2023 ANA conference, especially Brookfield-owned Westinghouse, already on Dutton’s reactor design shopping list, and Bill Gates’s TerraPower.

The dream merchant

O’Brien, meanwhile, hung around the conference for an extra Q&A session, and actively canvassed for political support via the ANA community, inviting delegates to mobilise their networks ahead of the federal election, and make wide-ranging submissions to the Labor-dominated parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy now underway, without feeling constrained by “Labor’s terms of reference”.

In return, O’Brien is promising the realisation of their nuclear dream. If only the Coalition can return to political power, they’ll get nuclear power, or at least that’s the bait, whatever happens down the years ahead. At one stage in the Q&A he even indicated that a future Coalition government could help promote nuclear energy development ambitions with other nations across the Asia-Pacific. 

Standing in the way, however, as O’Brien the reactor evangelist tells it, is a Labor government at odds with the nation’s patriotic spirit, and “Team Australia” to revive a favoured Tony Abbott line:

“This is about Australia  … But it is people in this room and beyond, who’ve been doing the heavy lifting for years. It is the intellectual capacity of people in this room and the willingness to be patriots, to put Australia first … It is very much a Team Australia effort of patriots who are prepared to engage and assist along the way.”

Oh dear, I’m feeling queasy all over again.

FOOTNOTE: A key conclusion from delving into O’Brien’s nuclear journey, and that of the Dutton Opposition over the past couple of years, is that they haven’t gone to energy experts to work out if and how nuclear fits into Australia’s energy future. Rather, they’ve gone to nuclear vested interests and true believers, and surprise! surprise! they are all for it! As are fossil-fuel diehards, who know a strategic distraction when they see one.

October 17, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Let’s urge the Australian government to get off the fence and vote YES FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT.

Gem Romuld, Director, ICAN Australia, 17 Oct 24

In one week, Australia will vote on several resolutions on nuclear weapons at the United Nations. While our political representatives can, and do, make compelling speeches about their commitment to ending nuclear weapons, these UN votes are important indicators of where government policy is really at.

For the last couple of years, Australia has abstained on both the Resolution on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons and the Resolution on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It’s time to get off the fence and vote “Yes” for a future free of nuclear weapons.

Write to Foreign Minister Wong NOW
The Resolution on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons stresses that the “immense and uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons cause unacceptable humanitarian consequences” and it calls for all states to “achieve nuclear disarmament”. Australia’s abstentions on this resolution are totally inconsistent with its “solemn recognition of the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear war” and “enduring commitment to the objective of a world without nuclear weapons”, as stated by Amanda Gorely, Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, 10 October 2024. There is no good reason that Australia should continue to abstain.
The way Australia votes at the UN matters. It is one way that the Australian public, our regional neighbours and the globe can understand our government’s true position on a range of issues. Write to the Foreign Minister NOW to let her know that you are watching, that you care, and that it’s time to get off the fence and vote yes for a future free of nuclear weapons.
I’ll urge our government to get off the fence!
We are so excited that Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese organisation of atomic bomb survivors, will be awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. They have been telling their harrowing stories of survival and campaigning for nuclear abolition for decades. No reasonable person can listen to the testimony of an atomic bomb survivor and still tolerate the existence of a single nuclear weapon. We must heed Nihon Hidankyo’s warning “Nuclear weapons and humanity cannot coexist.”

October 17, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Making “Australia a Global Nuclear Waste Dump”: Senator Shoebridge on Labor’s Latest Betrayal

This is purely designed to make AUKUS work, to make Australia a global nuclear waste dump, starting with waste from the UK and US nuclear submarines.

surrender of our sovereignty: the surrender of our national interest to these so-called great powerful friends.

It is an incredibly dangerous pathway, but it is one that we can still step aside from.

SYDNEY CRIMINAL LAWYERS, by Paul Gregoire,  15 Oct 2024

In passing the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 on Thursday last week, the Albanese government quietly got a proposition over the line in this country that had been resisted for decades and that was in the passing of laws that facilitate the imposition of nuclear waste dumps.

Greens Senator David Shoebridge stepped out of the chamber to announce this straight after the bill had passed and he decried the fact that both majors shut down debate on the divisive laws and then promptly jammed them through with bipartisan approval.

Of course, the official line is that the nation needs to be able to store its own nuclear waste that will be produced by the eight nuclear-propelled submarines the AUKUS Pillar I provides that the nation will be receiving over the next four decades or so. However, this acquisition is not guaranteed.

And as Shoebridge has made clear in his campaigning against turning this continent into a site for nuclear waste dumps, the framework that’s been enacted provides that the US and the UK will be dumping their nuclear waste at multiple sites here and other nations could join in the future.

AUKUS dumping ground

Defence minister Richard Marles explained on introducing the laws into parliament that they’re the “second legislative step of Australia’s conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”, and the laws are “specifically focused on… ensuring Australia maintains the highest nuclear safety”.

Under the new laws, regulated activities – nuclear facility, submarine and material activities – are regulated to “designated zones”. Two such zones have already been passed into law, one in WA and the other in SA, while a designated zone can further be any other area in Australia that’s chosen.

The bill also establishes NNP (naval nuclear propulsion) facilities, which are purpose-built facilities for constructing AUKUS submarines and they will further serve as radioactive waste management facilities as well. And this will all be taking place within the designated zones.

And besides a last-minute amendment to prevent the disposal of spent fuel from a submarine that is not Australian, Shoebridge warns that the major parties have swung open the door for this nation to take on the low, intermediate and high-level nuclear waste of the US and the UK going back years.

Opening the floodgates

As the senator explained in an interview in April, despite the US and the UK having nuclear industries going back half a century, neither of them have come up with a permanent solution for their high-grade military nuclear waste. Indeed, the US has only managed this for their intermediate range.

In addressing the 53rd weekly protest for Palestine and now Lebanon on Gadigal land in Sydney last weekend, Shoebridge further warned that the tone of the federal Liberal opposition has become ever more warlike of late, in terms of its support for Israel, which is ensuring Labor slides to the right.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Greens Senator David Shoebridge about his insistence that the nation is not yet bound to AUKUS, although it’s getting quite close, as well as the implications of the imposition of nuclear waste dumps and his warning about the Coalition’s new low in war posturing…………………………..

Senator Shoebridge:

What we saw was Albanese, Labor and the Dutton Coalition join up to do what’s known in parliamentary terms as a guillotine: to just ram this through parliament without any debate. And this is after a year of community resistance.

This is purely designed to make AUKUS work, to make Australia a global nuclear waste dump, starting with waste from the UK and US nuclear submarines.

This is going to be arriving in a town or city near you, in the next few months and years because of this legislation they rammed through.

In the next few years, we’re going to be receiving nuclear waste from visiting US nuclear submarines, which can do repairs, starting first at Garden Island off the coast of Fremantle, but also, at Osborne Naval Facility, just south of the Adelaide CBD.

This law greenlights working on those nuclear submarines at both of those facilities and then receiving and storing waste.

But it also means taking waste from those decommissioned UK and US submarines, and they’ve each got dozens and dozens of old submarines rusting away.

What the Albanese government has done – and they’ve held Peter Dutton’s hand on this journey all the way through – is work around decades and decades of First Nations resistance to nuclear waste dumps and ram this legislation through under the shadow of AUKUS.

I can tell you now, there are people inside Defence, and there are people inside Labor and the Coalition, who desperately want to turn nuclear waste dumps into broader civilian waste dumps and really use this to open up the nuclear industry across this country.

It has been deceitful from day one. When we pointed out last year that the legislation, as initially drafted, allows for the importation of any nuclear waste, even the high-level waste, which is the equivalent of weapons-grade uranium from the UK and US subs, we were attacked by defence minister Marles.

The minister called it a “Green conspiracy” when we pointed out that the law provided that. We won that argument. He had to concede that the bill, as it was drafted, allowed for any nuclear waste and that is partly why we got that amendment up to at least exclude one form of nuclear waste: nuclear fuel.

But from day one it has been deceitful. From day one it has been a stalking horse, using the cover of AUKUS to literally open up this country for the dumping of a global nuclear waste stream.

As more people find out about what this is, people are getting angrier and angrier, but we need to convert that into political mobilisation to undo this.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. If we get to a dystopian future, where we start receiving thousands of tonnes of other countries’ nuclear waste, there will be no path back from that. They will never accept that waste back.

That’s the kind of cruel bargain that the Albanese government is opening up.

I say this especially for First Nations peoples, who have been protecting this continent for tens of thousands of years. This is a particularly cruel bargain that the Albanese government is opening up.

I remain incredibly hopeful that the Australia public are increasingly seeing this for what it is.

Each time political support for AUKUS is tested, it falls and falls. And that is because people can see that we have a political class in both the Labor Party and the Coalition, who are willing to sell out our national interest – poison our land, poison our water – because they’re so keen to follow the US lead and be seen as a sub-imperial power, as a deputy sheriff, they can rely upon.

This latest piece of legislation, that opens up this country to the dumping of US and UK nuclear waste, is just the most recent example of that surrender of our sovereignty: the surrender of our national interest to these so-called great powerful friends.

It is an incredibly dangerous pathway, but it is one that we can still step aside from.  https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/making-australia-a-global-nuclear-waste-dump-senator-shoebridge-on-labors-latest-betrayal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF72VJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcYCk8aMc9ghXrB4wqCjiVYrmvoQtdGFca2r7nnmWrxwp8Zl17RummiVUw_aem_6KEWHWbagHvCNwR1mF-lWQ

October 17, 2024 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

Deadly war for journalists

October 16, 2024 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

Australian nuclear news headlines 14 -21 October

Headlines as they come in:

October 15, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s democracy trashed, as Labor government + Liberal opposition join forces to push AUKUS bills through

15 Oct 24, On Thurs 10th the ALP Gov & Coalition jointly forced a Senate vote on two AUKUS Bills without allowing any debate and jointly voted down all proposed amendments (see below) – see the vote at Senate Hansard extract at p.28-29 of this doc https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

16 x Senators voted No:

Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J.

36 x Labor & Liberal & National Senators voted Yes to AUKUS Bills.

see Australian Greens Senator David Shoebridge Media Release on 11th Oct 2024 on nuclear waste aspects:

Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal | Australian Greens

All proposed Amendments to the AUKUS Bills were voted down by the ALP & the Coalition.

a set of Amendments by Greens Senator Shoebridge, a set by Ind Senator Thorpe, a set by Ind Senator Pocock, and a set by Senator Lambie, were voted down as four groups of amendments – see a Senate Hansard extract from p.40 to p.58 of doc:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

October 15, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Queensland Premier Steven Miles is promising to hold a vote on nuclear power. Here’s why

October 15, 2024 , Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney,  https://theconversation.com/queensland-premier-steven-miles-is-promising-to-hold-a-vote-on-nuclear-power-heres-why-241254

Queensland Premier Steven Miles this week declared his party would hold a plebiscite on nuclear power if it returns to office at the forthcoming state election.

The move is in response to plans by the federal Coalition to build and operate seven nuclear plants around Australia if elected to government. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says the facilities would be built at sites of coal power stations scheduled for closure. Two are slated for Queensland, at the Callide and Tarong power stations.

Queensland has state laws banning the construction or operation of a nuclear facility and requiring the state government to hold a plebiscite if there are Commonwealth plans to build a nuclear plant in the state. A plebiscite is a referendum-style vote to gauge voters’ views on an issue.

Unlike a referendum, the results are not binding. There’s also very little chance a plebiscite could be held on or before the date of the next federal election, as Miles has suggested, as the laws do not allow for a plebiscite on an opposition policy.

Who has the constitutional power over nuclear facilities?

While the Commonwealth Constitution does not refer to nuclear energy, the federal parliament has passed laws to regulate nuclear matters. To do so, it relies on a web of constitutional powers, including the trade and commerce power, the corporations power, the external affairs power and the territories power.

The Commonwealth can also compulsorily acquire land for public purposes. This makes the land a “Commonwealth place” over which it can exercise full and exclusive legislative power.

The federal government has previously engaged in commercial matters by establishing trading corporations, such as NBN Co and Snowy Hydro Ltd, to deal with nation-building infrastructure.

It seems likely, therefore, that the federal parliament could pass laws to authorise and regulate the operation of nuclear power plants in Australia.

In doing so, its laws would override inconsistent state laws, such as those that prohibit nuclear facilities, under section 109 of the Constitution.

But state governments could still make it difficult for the Commonwealth to give effect to its nuclear policies. You only have to look at how state governments have successfully opposed Commonwealth efforts to create a nuclear waste facility to see the problems.

Plebiscite as booby trap

The development of a nuclear power industry in Australia has been debated before – most recently in 2006 when the Howard Coalition government commissioned the Switkowski report on the use of nuclear energy in Australia.

This report suggested the Commonwealth could act to establish 25 nuclear power stations across Australia. In response, Queensland’s parliament, under a Labor government, enacted the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007. It banned the construction or operation of certain types of nuclear facilities in Queensland. New South Wales and Victoria had also previously done the same.

The Queensland government recognised the Commonwealth probably had the power to override such a ban. So it included a political booby trap in section 21 of the law.

It says that if the relevant Queensland minister is satisfied the Commonwealth government has taken, or is likely to take, any step supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland, the minister:

must take steps for the conduct of a plebiscite in Queensland to obtain the views of the people of Queensland about the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

Unlike a referendum, which changes the Constitution, a plebiscite operates as an opinion poll.

It would not prevent a nuclear power plant being built, or stop the federal parliament overriding the state ban. But it could create a political impediment.

During the debate over the state law in 2007, then-Premier Peter Beattie made this point clearly:

If the Howard government wants to use its powers to override the strong position of Queenslanders […] this government will make certain that Queenslanders have a chance to have their say.

This was important, he claimed, because it would “put political pressure on the federal government to not go down this road”. In other words, the law can be used to apply political pressure.

Of plebiscites and federal elections

Miles suggested the plebiscite could be held the same day as the next federal election “to save people going to the polls twice”.

This could affect voting in the federal election by highlighting the impact of nuclear policies on Queensland. But if this is the tactic, Miles faces two problems.

First, Queensland law only triggers the plebiscite requirement when the relevant state minister is “satisfied the government of the Commonwealth” is likely to take a step in supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

But the minister could not legally be satisfied of this before the election outcome is known, as a policy of an opposition party does not amount to a proposed action of the “government of the Commonwealth”.

Second, section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 says no state or territory election, referendum or vote can be held on the day of a Commonwealth election without the authority of the governor-general.

This ban was introduced in 1922, after holding state votes at the same time as federal elections resulted in a high informal vote due to different voting instructions.

The governor-general has given this permission only once, when the Northern Territory held a plebiscite on becoming a state on the same day as the 1998 federal election.

It’s doubtful the federal government would advise the governor-general to permit a partisan state plebiscite to be held on the same day as a federal election.

Where does this leave us?

It’s unlikely Queensland could hold such a plebiscite at or before the next federal election.

But if the Coalition wins the next federal election and proceeds with its nuclear policy, Queensland would be obliged to hold a plebiscite – regardless of who wins the state election, unless its law was changed.

This would make clear how much support there was for nuclear power. A clear rejection wouldn’t have any legal effect, but could well achieve the same outcome through political pressure. We might also see other states follow suit to hold plebiscites on nuclear power, although none currently are legally obliged to do so.

October 15, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Premier vows to hold vote on Coalition nuclear power plan ahead of federal election

Queensland state law forbids the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other facilities under the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act.

LNP leader David Crisafulli, who is on track to lead the opposition to power, stands firmly against the proposal.

Fraser Barton, Oct 15, 2024,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/premier-vows-to-hold-vote-on-coalition-nuclear-power-plan-ahead-of-federal-election/

Queenslanders will be asked to vote in a plebiscite on nuclear energy at the next federal election if Labor Premier Steven Miles is re-elected. 

The premier believes a separate vote on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposals can be held at the same time as the federal poll.

“I’ve said I’ll comply with the law,” the premier told reporters alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday.

“The law bans nuclear in Queensland but also requires the minister to hold a plebiscite as soon as they reasonably believe that the Australian government intends to build a nuclear reactor.

“Peter Dutton said the first step to get nuclear reactors in Queensland is to elect David Crisafulli – they were his words – and that means that the first step to blocking Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear reactors is to elect me in October.”

Albanese labelled the federal coalition’s nuclear energy goals a “fantasy”.

“They don’t have a proper plan here, and it’s no wonder that they should be held to account for it,” he said. 

Dutton has promised to build seven nuclear plants across Australia if the coalition wins next year’s federal election.

Dutton has previously vowed to override states who refuse to adopt the energy plan.

But Queensland state law forbids the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other facilities under the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act.

LNP leader David Crisafulli, who is on track to lead the opposition to power, stands firmly against the proposal.

Political analyst John Mickel said Labor would use nuclear’s high costs and dependency on water to woo regional voters, if the plebiscite goes ahead.

“What Labor would be trying to do there is bring that issue to the fore,” he told AAP.

Plans to build nuclear plants could cost up to $600 billion and the coalition said nuclear reactors could be online by 2037.

October 15, 2024 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

This week’s news – not from the nuclear-military-industrial-complex

Some bits of good news – Australia quadruples the size of marine reserve near Antarctica. The world’s spending to fight global lead poisoning just doubled. Seoul’s Han River is being restored

************************************

TOP STORIES

Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff: Middle East Exploding, Ukraine Crumbling, US to Take Action? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao.

“Escalation dominance” and the new nuclear threat: We face more than 1,000 Holocausts.

Israeli retaliation threat sparks call in Iran for nuclear weapons.

Japanese anti-nuclear organisation awarded 2024 Nobel Peace Prize – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCm3CStSao8

Radiation: Updated findings provide insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk.

Renewable Energy Surge Lowers UK Blackout Risk.

********************************

Climate. Unprecedented peril: disaster lies ahead as we track towards 2.7°C of warming this century. The climate crisis threatens societal collapse—how many more hurricanes will it take for us to wake up?

Biodiversity. WWF: Average wildlife populations have fallen 73 per cent in 50 years.

Noel’s notes. Vitriolic hatred of Arabs and Russians versus THINKING and practical military strategy. The “tech bros” are going to have a global party with AI in warfare. Should we let them be in control?. How in the hell do you cope with Facebook?

*****************************************

AUSTRALIA. Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal. One of Australia’s largest unions, the ETU, questions Australia’s billion-dollar nuclear price tag. Australia’s evolving nuclear posture: avoiding a fait accompli (Part 1 of 2).

Labor springs surprise nuclear power committee to call Coalition bluff on energy policy. John Hewson –The opposition leader’s nuclear bullshit. More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/10/10/australian-nuclear-news-headlines-oct-7-14/

NUCLEAR ITEMS

ART and CULTURE. One Horrible Year on from October 7 2023, a Bleak Reflection.
ATROCITIES. Israel: Simply no red lines at all.  Let’s remember the365 days of genocide as well as October 7 attack.  Israeli Snipers Routinely, Deliberately Shoot Palestinian Kids In The Head.  As Israel Extends Its Genocide Into the West Bank, It Targets and Kills Children. Patrick Lawrence: Truths That Come Out Like the Sun.
ECONOMICS. Rolls-Royce mini nuke arm posts wider £78mln loss. Rolls-Royce suffers £78m loss on mini-nukes amid UK rollout delays. EDF Seeks to Raise Up to £4 Billion to Help Fund Construction of UK’s Hinkley Nuclear Plant.
EDF reportedly seeking up to £4bn from investors to finish Hinkley Point C.
EDUCATION. Financing new nuclear. Governments paying the price?- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/12/1-b1-financing-new-nuclear-governments-paying-the-price/

 Nuclear lobby takes over tertiary education, with blatant lies about “clean” “green” nuclear.
ENERGY. Nuclear – not the way ahead.
Renewables based systems are reducing blackouts in UK and USA!
China to head green energy boom with 60% of new projects in next six years.
Japan PM Ishiba eyes more renewables, less nuclear in energy mix.
ENVIRONMENT. Farmers warn over Hinkley Point C’s saltmarsh plan. EDF bosses grilled over River Severn salt marsh plans at ‘prickly’ meeting. Nuclear plant ‘will decimate fish stocks’.
LEGAL. Are DOE and NNSA Complying with the National Environmental Policy Act?.
MEDIA. “The First Live-Streamed Genocide”: Al Jazeera Exposes War Crimes Filmed by Israeli Troops Themselves.US-Backed Israeli Military Forces Have Executed Numerous Journalists Since October 7.

Brutal lessons of 1984 nuclear bomb drama Threads. BBC viewers urge everyone to watch ‘bleak’ war film that has only ever been shown four times. “Threads” brings nuclear war fears to a new audience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA&t=11s
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Planned nuclear plant in a Kenyan top tourist hub and home to endangered species sparks protest. Nuclear power stations are neither wanted nor needed in Scotland.
PEACE. UK and Ireland partners congratulate 2024 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
PERSONAL STORIES. Palestine Talks | Medea Benjamin ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB_OxrjJsRA)
POLITICS. As Milton bears down on Floridians, Joe and Bibi bear down on Iranians. Israeli Protesters Call for Ceasefire in Anti-War Demonstrations – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGw3XTLhIpk.

Kamala Harris’ foreign policy agenda music to war party, anathema to swing state voters.

Hinkley Point C saltmarsh plans ‘a disaster‘, say MPs.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Biden Officials Say Ceasefire Talks Are Suspended as Harris Names Iran Top Enemy. Biden Allowing Israel to March US Into War With Iran. 
IAEA Missing in action, on Israeli nuclear strike threats, Iranian outlet argues.

NATO state’s PM pledges to block Ukrainian membership.
SAFETY. Canada’s false ‘solution’ for used nuclear fuel waste. Canada’s nuclear watchdog green-lights operation of aging Pickering reactors to 2026 – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?s=Canada%E2%80%99s+nuclear+watchdog+green-lights

Ukraine wants UN nuclear watchdog to place foreign observers near all its nuclear plants.
SECRETS and LIES. Is This The Last October 7 Where We’ll Be Able To Speak The Truth?Fulsome bribery to communities – from Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).
SPINBUSTER. Sellafield’s “Social Impact Multiplied” Wins Greenwash Award for “The Edge” Water Sports Centre in Contaminated Harbour.
TECHNOLOGY. On Army bases, nuclear energy can’t add resilience, just costs and risks.
URANIUM. DoE awards next-gen nuclear fuel contracts backwards.
WASTES. Securing a nuclear waste disposal site for the future. A desire to leave not a ‘compelling need’ under nuke dump compo scheme say Nuclear Waste Services.

WAR and CONFLICT. Slaughter In Gaza And Lebanon As War With Iran Approaches. Report: US Considers Launching Airstrikes Against Iran To Support Israeli Attack.
Carnegie nuclear expert James Acton explains why it would be counterproductive for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program.Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear sites to target weapons: See map. 
Blinken approved Israeli attacks on Gaza aid convoys: Report. “Greater Israel:” Cabinet Minister Plots Seizure of Territory from 6 Neighbors, including Lebanon.

‘Russia doesn’t want to use nuclear weapons’: The view from wartime Moscow.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. US arms dealers witness ‘record profits’ from Israel’s year-long genocide in Gaza, war on Lebanon.
US’ next-gen nuclear submarines suffer delay with costs soaring past $130 billion.
Could small modular reactors be used to create nuclear warheads?.

October 15, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Under the shadow of a NATO-Russia nuclear war, Hibakusha awarded Nobel Peace Prize

By John Hallam, Oct 15, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/under-the-shadow-of-a-nato-russia-nuclear-war-hibakusha-awarded-nobel-peace-prize

As Vladimir Putin deploys mobile missile launchers throughout the Siberian Taiga armed with Yars heavy duty ICBMs, while making nuclear threats and claiming that these forces have been placed on a higher level of alert (though this isn’t necessarily so), NATO seems intent on compounding what seems already threatening and dangerous enough with the performance of the annual Steadfast Noon nuclear exercises, in which NATO literally rehearses for the apocalypse. It seems that this year the exercise is more ‘real’ than previously.

Meanwhile – and highly appropriately given the level of the threat and the danger the world faces – the Hibakusha (Bomb Victims) group Nihon Hidankyo has been awarded this years Nobel Peace Prize for its work in spreading the word on the effects of nuclear weapons and in working for their abolition. A more appropriate and timely award is hard to imagine.

Newsweek reported on 7 Oct that Putin had ordered Russian missiles placed on higher alert. Video of mobile missile launchers rumbling out into the Siberian Taiga over remote roads from their garages was posted on Telegram.

An item in Pearls and Irritations Oct 11, by this author noted that placing Russian nuclear missiles on high alert (if indeed their alert status really has changed) is ‘a dangerous game’.

If the deployment of Yars missiles on mobile launchers in the Siberian Taiga (threatening enough if we also take account of the accompanying rhetoric) inches us toward an event sequence that would, if it should take place, end what we call ‘civilisation’ in its first milliseconds of EMP, kill up to 50% of all humans in about 90 minutes, and leave most of those who somehow survive to starve and freeze in the twilight of a nuclear winter – then the pursuit of a NATO nuclear exercise in which the dropping and the targeting of nuclear weapons is actively practiced, surely compounds the risk.

Russia’s deployment of its mobile YARS ICBMs was bad enough. 2 weeks worth of NATO nuclear exercises, in which NATO actively practices for the apocalypse, surely compounds that risk.

Colonel Daniel Bunch, director of NATO nuclear weapons operations, adds point to the potential risk, saying in a Finnish publication that this year’s exercise also has another clear difference from last years’ nuclear weapons exercises.

“- This year, the planes will deliver the weapon to the target”. “We’re looking at how to integrate that and what we can learn about maximising the performance of a very powerful aircraft,”

One can imagine how this reads in the Kremlin. About as cheerfully as the deployment of YARS mobile missiles reputedly on ‘high alert’ reads to NATO.

Back in 1983, NATO also practiced for the apocalypse, in an exercise known as ‘Able Archer’, in which commanders went through the procedures they would have had to go through to order the release of nuclear weapons. There was one slight glitch – The KGB was convinced it wasn’t an exercise but the real thing. Only the leakage of NATOs real battle plans to the Kremlin (showing it was indeed an exercise) and a last minute substitution of heads of state for underlings saved the world from nuclear war.

Russia’s deployment of an important segment of its nuclear forces, (assuming a real change of status has taken place which it may not have) combined with NATO’s nuclear exercises which will go on for a week starting Monday put the world closer to the brink.

The need for nuclear risk reduction measures such as No First Use, de-alerting and enhanced or resumed military to military communication has never been clearer, and the need for abolition never clearer.

Australia could do much both by vigorous advocacy of risk reduction and by joining the TPNW (Ban Treaty). Much has been promised and little or nothing achieved in this department.

Meanwhile, the well-deserved award of the Nobel Peace prize to the Hibakusha both puts the spotlight on nuclear weapons and their abolition, and on the suffering of nuclear victims, where it needs to be.

October 15, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Queensland premier will hold plebiscite on nuclear power if he wins state election

Exclusive: Steven Miles says law requires a referendum be called if the commonwealth is likely to build a ‘prohibited nuclear facility’ in the state

Andrew Messenger and Graham Readfearn, Mon 14 Oct 2024

Steven Miles will hold a state plebiscite on Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plans if he wins the 26 October poll, a move that could polarise the electorate in the Coalition’s strongest state at the next federal election.

The Queensland premier said he had received legal advice on the nuclear issue and raised the possibility of initiating a plebiscite on the same day as the federal election.

“Depending on how things play out, you could even hold that plebiscite on the same day as the federal election, to save people going to the polls twice,” Miles said in an exclusive interview with Guardian Australia.

The federal opposition leader, Peter Dutton, will take a plan for seven Commonwealth-owned nuclear power stations to the next election. That includes two in Queensland, replacing existing coal plants at Callide and Tarong.

But an obscure provision in Queensland’s 17-year-old Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 may stand in the way. The act bans granting a grid connection, development application or generating authority to any nuclear facility.

It also requires the minister call a plebiscite if “satisfied the government of the commonwealth has taken, or is likely to, take any step supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland”.

The state opposition leader, David Crisafulli, has repeatedly ruled out changes to the law, most recently at a joint press conference with Dutton this month……………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/14/queensland-premier-will-hold-plebiscite-on-nuclear-power-if-he-wins-state-election

October 14, 2024 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

Two Peter Dutton policies may swing Teals to Labor in a minority government

Michael West Media by Michael Pascoe | Oct 14, 2024

The scenario: a minority government after the next election, as various polls forecast.

The question: in a close-run thing, to whom would the “Teals” give the keys to the Lodge?

The hypothesis: there are two Dutton policies that should force the genuine independents to select Albanese as Prime Minister.

The perversity: neither of those policies could be expected to appeal much to voters who weren’t already in the LNP camp.


May election likely

Slipping by without much attention last week was the government changing Budget Night to March 25, effectively confirming the early May election that has always been most likely. So seven months to win any hearts and minds that are not already committed.

The makeup of the crossbench will be different. Not all the community independents – to give Teals their official name – from the Class of ’22 may be returned (for starters, vale the scratched seat of North Sydney and, therefore, Kylea Tink) and there could be newbies. From here, though, it still looks likely that Teals will have the final say on who forms government. More on that later.


Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.

The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.

The nuclear “concept” of a plan

Dutton’s “concept of a plan” to build multiple nuclear reactors somewhere between a distant tomorrow and eternity – an excuse for extending fossil fuel burning and reducing investment in renewables – won’t and can’t wash with any Teal genuinely concerned about climate policy.


Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.

The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.

As Phil Coorey reported in the AFR ($):
“If they’re not going to release the detail, we’ll do it for them,” a government member said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The terms of reference include an examination of how soon a nuclear power plant could be operational; the cost of building and maintaining them, the storage and transportation of fuel and waste; the feasibility of using existing coal-fired power station sites and their power lines; federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; and the impact of power prices.”


Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit. 

With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.

Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.


Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit. 

With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.

Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.

The only certainty about the LNP’s energy/climate policy is that it would delay efforts to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. With climate denial strong in the party, the procrastinator’s golden rule rules: Put off to tomorrow what you don’t have to do today because you might get away with not doing it tomorrow.


There is no way Teals, in conscience, could choose such a policy. Climate 2000’s Simon Holmes à Court doesn’t call the Teals’ shots, but they couldn’t expect his support if they went with the deniers and sceptics………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The minority government scenario?

The post-election negotiations will test the integrity of cross-bench members. The Teals of Liberal heritage – most obviously Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Kate Chaney in Curtin – might have to hold their noses to appoint a Labor government, but they would forfeit all personal credibility if they empowered fraudulent nuclear and housing policies. 


The others – Monique Ryan, Zali Steggall, Helen Haines, Zoe Daniel, Sophie Scamps and, possibly post-May, Nicolette Boele in Bradfield – have their own professed standards to live up to. If they do, they won’t be empowering a minority LNP government. 

We may also assume that Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie ($) and Andrew Gee (if he is returned in Calare after quitting the Nationals over the Voice referendum) go LNP, while the Greens and Andrew Wilkie prefer Labor.

The self-declared opposite of a Teal, the former Liberal Dai Le ($) in the former Labor seat of Fowler, has never pledged herself on climate or anything else for that matter, winning by being an involved local and not the parachuted-in Labor candidate, Kristina Keneally.

Her gaffe in ignorantly suggesting the Lucas Heights research facility could generate electricity indicates she would not have a problem with the Dutton nuclear fantasy – unless the parliamentary inquiry convinces her otherwise.  https://michaelwest.com.au/peter-duttons-policies-may-swing-teals-to-labor-in-election/

October 14, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »