Nuclear Power in Australia – it’s absurd
by Chris Simpson, https://www.democrats.org.au/nuclear-power-in-australia-its-absurd/—
The Coalition finally has a plan and it is to build nuclear power stations at existing coal fired power station sites in Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Mt Piper in NSW, Collie in WA, Loy Yang in Victoria and Northern Power in SA.
Nuclear power may seem attractive to voters as a way to easily meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, having worked on coal fired and nuclear power plant construction myself, I can see where ‘the plan’ will run into practical problems.
About me: In late 2003 I was invited to Sydney to be mechanical works supervisor at Lucas Heights for the Replacement Research Reactor construction – INVAP. An Argentinian company was engaged for the Open Pool Australian Lightwater, state-of-the-art 20 megawatt multi-purpose reactor, predominantly built to replace the 50-year-old HIFAR reactor (1958–2007). I supervised the mechanical works for the reactor pool, service pool and neutron shutters and then the high-density concrete installation works to encase the mechanical components.
INVAP produces isotopes primarily for nuclear medicine, not power generation. The new INVAP opened in April 2007 by the then PM, John Howard, but serious leaks were found and it was shut down in July 2007 for two months. So, you may want to think again if someone tries to give you an iron-clad guarantee that modern nuclear power plants are 100% safe.
I am a proud Australian Democrat. Our party has a long history of fact-checking, and this is one way in which the party has been ‘Keeping the Bastards Honest’. This also applies to the nuclear power issue. For example, our party-leader, Lyn Allison (former Australian Democrats Senator and guest speaker at our upcoming Sandgate Town Hall meeting) was part of a Senate committee that reported in 2003 on regulating the uranium industry (mines). The executive summary speaks volumes in and of itself, and opens with:
“This inquiry was initiated in response to numerous leaks and spills at the four uranium mines in question and its terms of reference require the Committee to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the current system of environmental regulation”.
The proposal by the Leader of the Opposition is naïve and reckless. As experts know, Tarong has a capacity of 1400 megawatts of coal fired power. Compare this with the 20 megawat output of INVAP and it becomes clear that small nuclear reactors are not the solution. SMTs are claimed to produce 300 megawatts as an optimum. At this rate, five reactors would be required at Tarong to produce the 1500+ megawatts required!
‘The plan’ may sound attractive, but we are guided by evidence and expert advice. Australia lacks the knowhow and maturity in the industry. Ramping up the skills and knowledge required for nuclear power is unrealistic – a policy in search of a political party to peddle it!
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Leader of the Opposition on this matter at our Sandgate Town Hall meeting on 30th August 2024. Lyn Allison will be able to offer valuable insights into nuclear issues as former Democrats spokesperson on nukes in the Senate.
Arundhati Roy: India Must Stop Arming Israel or ‘Forever Be Linked to Genocide’
“It is our responsibility to show that as people of India, we refuse to be complicit in that, even if our government wishes to continue with what it does.”
Brett Wilkins, Aug 02, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/arundhati-roy-israel
Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”
Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”
Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”
Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”
“What is happening in Gaza, it is not just the murder… of tens of thousands of women and children,” she continued. “It is the bombing of hospitals, the destruction of universities… the attempt to erase the very memory people have of that place. It is a genocide like no other because it’s taking place on live TV.”
“India used to be a country that supported the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom,” Roy noted. “Everywhere, even in the United States… people are standing up against their government’s support for [Israel]. But we are not standing up… and that is such a shame.”
“We must stand up. We must refuse,” she asserted. “We will not support the export of weapons of any kind.”
Roy is one of more than two dozen former Indian Supreme Court justices and other judges, foreign service officers, academics, artists, activists, and others who on Wednesday sent a letter to Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh urging him to halt the licensing of arms sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 140,000 Palestinians while obliterating and starving Gaza.
“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clearly ruled that Israel is in violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention and further that Israel is in illegal occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory,” the letter states. “In light of these rulings, any supply of military material to Israel would amount to a violation of India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India.”
Among the weapons India has sent to Israel are Hermes 900 unmanned aerial drones, which are co-manufactured with Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The letter notes that the drones “have been extensively used in the Israeli Defense Forces’ military campaign in Gaza.”
“Several [United Nations] experts have warned that the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, and risk state complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately,” the letter’s signer wrote.
“In short, the grant of licenses and approvals for export of military material to Israel, coupled with reports of such exports by Indian companies, constitutes a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our own Constitution,” the letter stresses.
“International law aside, we consider such exports to be morally objectionable, indeed abominable,” the signatories added. “We demand, therefore, that India should immediately suspend its collaboration in the delivery of military material to Israel. Further, India must immediately make every effort to ensure that weapons already delivered to Israel are not used to contribute to acts of genocide or violations of international humanitarian law.”
The letter came ahead of planned nationwide protests by Indian leftists on Saturday calling for an end to arms sales and “all forms of complicity with Israel’s illegal occupation and genocide.”
India—which in 1971 invaded Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in large part to end a U.S.-backed Pakistani genocide mostly targeting Bengalis—voted in favor of the December U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Gaza cease-fire.
However, the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and many lawmakers from his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party have expressed steadfast support for Israel and its Gaza onslaught. Critics have noted that both Israel and India are occupying Muslims, the former in Palestine and the latter in Jammu and Kashmir.
In an interview with Middle East Eye published Friday, Roy—who faces prosecution in India over comments she allegedly made nearly 15 years ago regarding Kashmir—said that India could “forever be linked to genocide” if it does not change course.
“India needs to stop the export of weapons to Israel and ensure the return of Indian workers who have been sent to Israel to replace Palestinian workers,” she said.
“If it does not do so at once, it is in violation of the orders of the ICJ,” she added. “It will forever be complicit in aiding and abetting a genocide that is being telecast live for the world to watch.”
America’s war machine: Unless Australia acquires nuclear weapons, why acquire AUKUS subs?
By Percy Allan, 3 Aug 24, https://johnmenadue.com/americas-war-machine-unless-australia-acquires-nuclear-weapons-why-acquire-aukus-subs/
Nuclear-powered Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines are a useful deterrent only if they carry cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that can be launched from their unique vertical firing shaft.
Then if a distant enemy nuked Australia, we could launch an instant nuclear retaliation from such submarines lurking off their coast for months without needing refuelling.
That’s called MAD – mutually assured destruction – both sides know that neither side could nuke the other without risking oblivion.
Australia does not have nuclear weapons, nor does it plan to acquire them.
Australia’s quest to become part of America’s armed forces
Australia is fusing its navy, air force and army with America’s military forces. It’s called shifting from “interoperability” to “interchangeability”. One senior Australian defence officer has explained it as follows:
“…interoperability is two organisations able to work together, share information through technology and systems, and operate effectively as a joint or combined team. The higher standard of interchangeability includes all that plus the ability to seamlessly exchange individual people, equipment, doctrine, and/or systems between trusted nation groups.”
In essence under “interoperability” there are two separate national chains of command working jointly, whereas under “interchangeability” there is single chain of command. Under the latter it is doubtful the junior partner could break the chain of command and insist it call its own shots if the senior partner got into a skirmish not of Australia’s doing.
Without nuclear arms Australia should not be a party to confronting China
As such the Australian mainland could be the first casualty in an American war with China because we would be the weak link in America’s war machine without our own nuclear weapons.
Australian owned Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines carrying cruise missiles with conventional war heads would not provide a meaningful MAD deterrence.
And we have no guarantee from America that if a foreign power nuked Australia, America would nuke it in turn since that could cause a nuclear attack on America itself.
Worse still, unlike America we do not have an air defence system to intercept missile and drone attacks on our capital cities nor will we have such a protective shield in the foreseeable future.
Australia’s choice – get nuclear armed or stay conventionally armed?
In February 1970, Australia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which commits us not to acquire nuclear weapons and to champion non-proliferation gobally. Since then, we have been one of the treaty’s strongest supporters.
Given that very long-range submarines like Virginia Class and AUKUS are best suited for nuclear armed powers (US, UK France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea), Australia needs to make a choice:
- Break the NPT and the join the club of nine nuclear armed nations and risk provoking our biggest neighbour Indonesia to do likewise, or
- Scrap nuclear-powered submarines for conventional ones better suited for defending our coastline than patrolling China’s foreshores
Canada recently decided to buy 12 modern electric-diesel powered submarines for an estimated US$44 billion (versus US$ 268-$368 billion for Australia’s 8 Virginia Class and AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines) since its focus is on patrolling its own vast coastline not that of distant nations.
Marles’ rationale for nuclear-powered subs does not stack up
Australia’s official rationale for obtaining submarines that can stay under water almost indefinitely is that they will defend our world shipping lanes and undersea communication cables. But that’s not credible.
Each year there are 26,000 ship port calls involving over 3,000 different ships at 70 Australian ports according to Shipping Australia.
China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner in goods and services, accounting for one third of our trade with the world. It is not in China’s interests to disrupt it.
Marles should explain how three nuclear submarines by 2039 or eight by 2055 can defend each of these ships doing 26,000 round trips from being sunk by enemy submarines, destroyers, or bombers. Note that only one sub in three will be at sea at any time with the other two in port for maintenance or training purposes.
Marles probably thinks that our subs would be assisted by America’s 67 nuclear submarines (China has only 12 but is planning to have 21 by the early 2030s). But what assurance does he have that America would prioritise Australia’s trade routes and shipping movements over its own?
As for the nearly one million miles of telecommunication cables lying on the ocean floor, submarines can’t protect them. To safeguard these optical fibres, they are covered in silicone gel and wrapped in multiple layers of plastic, steel wires, copper sheathing, polyethylene insulator, and nylon yarn. In the deep sea, ocean inaccessibility largely protects cables, requiring only a thin polyethylene sheath. Hence the navy won’t have a role in patrolling their security.
Australia should avoid small nuclear reactors until 2040s, engineers warn
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/australia-should-avoid-small-nuclear-reactors-until-2040s-engineers-warn/, by Adam Duckett, 3 Aug 24
ENGINEERS have warned that if Australia is to reverse years of opposition to nuclear power and begin installing reactors in the country, the least risky option would be to wait until the 2040s once small modular reactor (SMR) technology has matured.
The report comes as the opposition Liberal Party argues the government’s energy strategy is overly reliant on renewables. If elected to power, the Liberal Party would overturn Australia’s longstanding moratorium on nuclear power and develop a nuclear fuels industry.
Party leader Peter Dutton has proposed seven sites where a coal-fired power plant has closed or is scheduled to close that could host nuclear reactors. The ambition is to build two SMRs or conventional large nuclear plants by 2037 at the latest.
However, this could be too ambitious according to a new study from the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE).
“SMR technology could provide low carbon energy compatible with Australia’s current electricity system, however as an emerging technology, there is considerable uncertainty around commercial viability and some of these potential benefits,” said ATSE president Katherine Woodthorpe.
“Overall, the associated timescales, expense, skills gap, legal and regulatory barriers, and social acceptance of nuclear power means the technology is high-risk when compared to existing energy options.”
If Australia was to pursue SMRs, the least risky option would be to procure them after several designs have been commercialised and successfully operated in other OECD countries, the report concludes. Companies including Rolls-Royce and NuScale are pushing ahead with the development of SMR technology but there are currently no SMR designs licensed for use in OECD countries. ATSE estimates that while prototype designs might be built by the mid-2030s a market for SMRs might not be fully formed until the late 2040s.
If an Australian government pushed for a prototype SMR earlier than the 2040s, the country would need to build a nuclear workforce, work directly with reactor developers, and reform legislation. In 1998, Australia passed a law preventing the construction or operation of nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication plants, enrichment plants or reprocessing facilities. The Liberal Party is undeterred, with shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien announcing earlier this week that the party wants Australia to go beyond being the fourth largest producer of uranium and develop an end-to-end nuclear fuels sector.
O’Brien said: “As Australia establishes its own civil nuclear program, we should aspire to build sovereign capability beyond the mining and milling of uranium to include conversion and enrichment through to fuel fabrication for civil nuclear power plants,” The Australian reports.
While state premiers have said they will resist a push from the federal government to go nuclear, analysis published by parliament suggests that it has the power to override regional bans.
Australia would also need to gain public support for nuclear though recent polls hint at growing support for the technology. A decade ago, six in ten Australians were opposed to nuclear power but a poll conducted this year shows this has flipped, with 61% now in support.
‘True horror’: Japan’s Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor campaigns for a nuclear-free world
Bun Hashizume, 93, who has written poems about her descent into ‘hell’ after the bombing, has travelled the world to spread her message
Norman Aisbett, SCMP, 3 Aug 24,
What I feel the most about these days is human stupidity,” says 93-year-old Bun Hashizume, from her home in the Japanese temple city of Kamakura.
“I was a victim of the first atomic bomb in human history and I have advocated throughout my life for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the world leaders still do not understand their true horror.
“Even my poems cannot describe it.”
Rewind to 8.15am on August 6, 1945 in the final throes of World War II.
A US atomic bomb named “Little Boy” was dropped from a B-29 aircraft and exploded at low altitude over the city of Hiroshima. With a blast force equal to 16 kilotons of TNT, it destroyed most buildings and caused mass death and injury.
Then aged 14, Hashizume was a war-mobilised school student working in the four-storey reinforced-concrete Savings Bureau building about 1.5km from the hypocentre of the blast.
Looking back, she recalls a third-floor window being filled “with a sudden flash of light that was so bright I thought the sun had fallen at my feet. A thousand rainbows all at once seemed to explode before my eyes”. And how, after being briefly unconscious and bleeding heavily from a head wound, she staggered downstairs among other workers looking “like a parade of ghosts with wildly dishevelled hair and sooty bodies”.
Once outside the building, it was a regular employee, Tomoyanagi, who “half-carried” her to a nearby Red Cross Hospital, where more shocking scenes and high drama followed.
Hashizume is today the author of The Day the Sun Fell – Memoirs of a Survivor of the Atomic Bomb – translated by Susan Bouterey – which closely details her and her family’s horrific experiences and also explains her present-day opposition to “dangerous” nuclear power plants, which she emphasises during this Australian writer’s long-distance interview with her, via a Japanese interpreter-admirer.
Her drive was such that, at age 70, she began her solo pilgrimages to many countries over 15 years to “become a citizen of the world” and share her anti-nuclear views. With only her aged pension to buy airline tickets and stay in youth hostels, she spoke to anyone or group willing to listen, including schoolchildren. Everywhere, people were also touched by her genuine personal warmth and quiet charm. A small booklet she handed out was entitled, “Fellow Humans! Let Us Foster Love and Wisdom.”
Right now, though, she is homebound due to A-Bomb-related health issues that have plagued her life. She tells of having endured “lifelong” rheumatism, chronic kidney disease, thyroid cancer and more. The past 20 years have also brought numerous breaks of radiation-weakened ribs, collarbones and three compressed fractures of her spine after a fall in Norway in 2003.
She is unable to go outside alone. There are twice-weekly visits to a hospital and three transports per week to a rehabilitation clinic. “Otherwise I’m on my bed reading the newspapers, with care from my eldest son and his family, who live with me.”
Her activist spirit nevertheless endures. She cites recent-times threats of nuclear strikes by North Korea if threatened; by Russia amid the Ukraine war; and an Israeli cabinet minister’s suggestion to nuke Hamas in Gaza The minister was promptly sacked by his embarrassed government which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons – and subsequent high tensions and conflict between arch-enemies Israel and Iran.
{I believe that nuclear weapons should never be used, stockpiles should be completely abolished, and the Japanese government should join and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as soon as possible,” she says. “It’s no wonder they are being been used as a threat.” She further notes that nine nations have nuclear weapons, but the warheads of only two nations – Russia (5,890) and the US (5,224) – “are enough to destroy all life on Earth several times over”.
A major disappointment for her was the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop28) in Dubai when 23 nations including the US and Japan declared they would triple the generation of their nuclear power plants to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
“It is shocking that Japan joined this dangerous proposal despite the fact that the world’s pervasive emphasis on economic growth, baseless absolute trust in science and technology, and limitless pursuit of energy collapsed in Fukushima in 2011,” she says…………………………………………
After Tomoyanagi left to find her own family, a 16-year-old boy Yoshiaki Iida, who was unknown to Hashizume, helped her outside just before flames engulfed the whole building.
However, she later heard that her brother, Hideo, seven, had died after his back caught fire in an instant when hit from behind by the scorching A-Bomb blast in a school playground. Her other family members survived but with bad injuries and other health problems. Younger sister Shizuko, nine, had been evacuated to a temple when she was struck by the blast wave. Years of radiation sickness caused her suicide at age 19. Older sister Mitsuko, 19, suffered “ghastly” facial wounds at her grandmother’s house.
What does Hashizume remember most after the explosion? She replies: “The complete silence and the smell of burnt corpses that filled the air.”………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Day the Sun Fell – Memoirs of a Survivor of the Atomic Bomb by Bun Hashizume (translated by Susan Bouterey) is published by Austin Macauley Publishers Ltd and also available on Kindle. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3273031/true-horror-japans-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-campaigns-nuclear-free-world
Nuclear plant trips due to fire, and battery storage steps in to stabilises the grid
What happens when a giant nuclear power station
suddenly goes off line? It’s a question that market operators have to ask
themselves all the time.
The biggest units on the grid are generally
nuclear, in those countries that have them, and a considerable amount of
planning and expense needs to make sure that the back-up is on hand,
despite the insistence by some of the whackier pro-nuclear spruikers in
Australia that no storage or gas is needed.
According to Grid Status, which
monitors grid operations in the US, the frequency excursion was arrested by
a rapid response from the state’s rapidly growing portfolio of big
battery projects. “Immediately, grid frequency declined,” Grid Status
noted in a post on LinkedIn and X. “An excursion below critical levels
required a fast response by ERCOT to ensure stability of the grid. In this
case, ERCOT swiftly deployed ancillary services, including a significant
amount of batteries providing ECRS, to boost the frequency back to
normal.” ERCOT is the Electricity reliability Council of Texas, which
manages the grid. ECRS refers to the contingency reserve service. The big
batteries were back in action a few days later when one of the state’s
coal fired power station units also tripped.
Texas is expected to more than
double its battery storage capacity in 2024, adding around 6.4 GW of
battery capacity (with varying levels of storage), to the 5.5 GW that
existed before.
Renew Economy 1st Aug 2024
Israel lobby ramps up scare campaigns in fear of truth
By Bilal Cleland | 1 August 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/israel-lobby-ramps-up-scare-campaigns-in-fear-of-truth,18826
Israel lobby groups have increased efforts to silence those accusing the nation of genocide in Gaza, writes Bilal Cleland.
SHAIMA FARWANEH, 16, in the coastal displacement camp in al-Mawasi, west of Khan Younis, was preparing to make breakfast for her family on 13 July when the Israeli bombs fell.
Ninety people, mainly women and children, were killed and over 300 injured.
Shaima told Mondoweiss:
There is no country in all the world that does this to children, women, and civilians. This isn’t how wars are.
A leg hit me and I saw dismembered bodies a few metres away. I saw a young child screaming. He lost his lower limbs and was crawling on his hands and screaming. The bombs didn’t stop and suddenly the boy disappeared. I saw how he vanished before me while we ran and lowered our eyes to the ground, unable to do anything but run.
Israel in trouble
Following 7 October, by the end of 2023, from over 4,000 immigrants a month only about 1,000 a month were arriving in Israel. A 70 per cent decline.
In that same couple of months, about 470,000 Israelis fled.
As reported in Anadolu Ajansi:
‘Therefore, there is a negative migration of about half a million people, and this does not include thousands of foreign workers, refugees and diplomats who left the country.’
Despite the support given to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the ruling parties across North America, much of Europe and Australia, one in four Israeli Jews and four in ten Arab Israelis would like to leave Israel according to a new survey. This reflects ‘a steady distrust with Israel’s political and military leadership’.
International institutions closing in
Haaretz published the stunning International Court of Justice (ICJ) findings on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory:
- Israel must end its presence in the occupied territories as soon as possible.
- Israel should immediately cease settlement expansion and evacuate all settlers from the occupied areas.
- Israel is required to make reparations for the damage caused to the local and lawful population in the Palestinian territories.
- The international community and organisations have a duty not to recognise the Israeli presence in the territories as legal and to avoid supporting its maintenance.
- The UN should consider what actions are necessary to end the Israeli presence in the territories as soon as possible.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is expected to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant within a fortnight.
Conflating opposition to genocide with anti-Semitism
The United States makes much of the role of the Iranian Council of Guardians selecting acceptable candidates for political office but ignores the role of its own Council of Guardians, AIPAC, which decides on suitable candidates for office.
U.S. Congressman Jamaal Bowman, once a recipient of lobby largesse, after seeing reality in Palestine on a J Street-funded excursion, called Gaza a genocide and said boycotts were legitimate.
Israeli lobby groups spent $9.9 million in a Democrat primary to get rid of him in favour of a supporter of Israel.
The scare campaign around rising anti-Semitism, which conflates criticism of Israel’s mass atrocities with prejudice against Jews, is a feature of most of the old colonial countries.
Mary Kostakidis, one of Australia’s most respected journalists, who speaks truth to power, has written regarding the Israeli genocide in Gaza:
‘In an effort to silence me, the Zionist Federation have filed a complaint with the [Australian Human Rights Commission] for racial vilification, aided by a reporter who can’t do his own research.’
The lobby levelled another case of harassment and suspicious accusations against a Palestinian Australian engaged in anti-genocide activity.
Hash Tayeh, who had to present himself to the police over alleged anti-Semitic comments, was not charged and his matter has been referred to the Office of Public Prosecutions.
His Caulfield Burgertory outlet was set on fire, allegedly by two men, on 10 November, an attack he claimed was linked to his involvement in a pro-Palestine rally and thus a hate crime.
Then we witnessed the arrest of a Palestinian activist in the Prime Minister’s electoral office.
Sarah Shaweesh, who was asking about the delay in visas for her family in Gaza, was arrested.
The office refused to help her.
She is a key organiser of the 24/7 Gaza sit-in protest in front of the PM’s office.
Complicity in genocide
In early March, Sydney law firm Birchgrove Legal lodged a communiqué to the ICC prosecutor claiming that the Australian PM and a number of other high-level local politicians are complicit in the Gaza genocide.
On Tuesday this week, it announced that the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC had added the document:
‘“…to the evidence gathered as part of the ICC’s investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine,” as well as having been transmitted “to relevant staff members for further review”.’
Meanwhile, Muslim Votes Matter is mobilising the anti-genocide vote in preparation for the next federal election.
TODAY. “People of a generally nervous disposition” worry about mishaps with nuclear bombs.
I just couldn’t resist that little quotation from an article today about an undetonated nuclear bomb lying at the bottom of a river. To be fair, I think that the writer might have been being sarcastic. He also mentions that “bomb-enthusiasts” worry, too.
Nevertheless, his statement is symptomatic of the comfortable attitude of the authorities to the whole subject of nuclear weapons – in this system, quaintly called deterrence. We’re all a bit worried that someone, like Putin, for example, might actually use one, some day.
But, in the “normal” course of events, nuclear weapons provide good, reliable jobs, and all sorts of government benefits to the community, and something to be proud of- “my strong country” etc. Don’t they?
So, it’s a bit annoying, when someone kicks up a fuss about the nuclear weapons that get accidentally dropped, and lost. They have all sorts of safety features, so they can’t easily explode. well, the land-based ones are supposed not to, anyway. The Atomic Archive lists for the USA 32 “Broken Arrow” nuclear accidents. Of course, that’s only the American ones. What about the others – French, British, Russian, North Korean, Chinese nuclear weapons? Russia was known to have 45.000 nuclear weapons up to 1986 – most of them on submarines – how many got lost undersea? Can they explode, undersea?
But that’s the thing. We are comforted by the reassurance from the experts, that explosion of a lost nuclear weapon is extremely unlikely. We are safe.
What they don’t talk about – is corrosion, leakage of radioactive materials. Over time, increased radioactivity in water and land will affect millions of people, – but don’t worry – of all those millions, only a few million will get cancer from this. So you see, a few million cancer deaths is nothing much really, to worry about. Or so the experts would have us think.
The nuclear lobby has achieved a wonderful global brainwashing. The only thing to worry about is a dramatic event, – an explosion with high levels of radiation released.
If you worry about those less dramatic millions of cancers, well, you must be “a person of a generally nervous disposition”. Hell – it’s your fault – you need psychiatric care, you poor thing.
Ted O’Brien sets out long-term plan for uranium-enrichment industry
Joe Kelly, THE AUSTRALIAN, 31 July 24
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien will call for Australia to develop a sovereign capability at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – including the enrichment, conversion and fabrication of uranium – as new survey results show a dip in support for nuclear power.
In an address in Adelaide on Thursday night, Mr O’Brien will sketch out a long-term national endeavour to strengthen Australia’s energy security, building on the Coalition’s plans to replace retiring coal-fired power stations with up to seven nuclear power plants.
Mr O’Brien’s long-term nuclear plan for Australia now includes three key planks: the unlocking of the nation’s uranium reserves; the building of nuclear power plants; and a longer-term plan to develop expertise across the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle that would involve the development of a uranium-enrichment industry.
The three-pronged plan is aimed at ensuring Australia can eventually be self-sufficient, and not have to rely on global supply chains for the nuclear fuel rods that will be needed to power a future fleet of nuclear power plants…………………….
“Advancing Australia in this direction would set Australia up for the future, not just economically, but also strategically.”
Mr O’Brien will speak about his longer-term vision at an energy event on Thursday night being hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs, where he will also make a case for Australia to develop the capability to export nuclear fuel…………………….
The speech follows SEC Newgate’s release of its latest Mood of the Nation report on Thursday, which reveals only moderate support for nuclear power and a clear preference for renewables and new transmission infrastructure.
The latest tracking survey of 2021 Australians over the age of 18, taken between July 17 and 23, shows support for nuclear is slightly lower than in April at 37 per cent, while 39 per cent of respondents say they are against nuclear, and 23 per cent are neutral.
The results show a clear preference for building large-scale wind and solar farms with new transmission lines (50 per cent of respondents prefer this option), rather than nuclear power plants that use existing transmission infrastructure (26 per cent of people prefer this option).
Support for the Coalition’s policy to build seven new nuclear power plants is 39 per cent, while 35 per cent of respondents say it makes them less likely to vote with the Coalition, and 26 per cent say it makes them more likely to vote for the Opposition at the next election.
Of those who oppose the Coalition plan, most objections relate to safety concerns (41 per cent say it is too dangerous). However, 19 per cent of opponents to the Coalition plan believe renewables are superior.
Dutton praises Canada to sell nuclear plan. But does Ontario really have cheaper power?
Guardian, Graham Readfearn, 1 August 24
Opposition leader’s argument is puzzling given Canadian provinces dominated by renewables pay less for electricity.
There’s a community in Ontario called Dutton which, right now, seems appropriate given the number of times Peter Dutton has name-checked the Canadian province over the last 12 months.
In dozens of media interviews and speeches, Dutton (the opposition leader, not the township) has said Ontarians are getting cheap electricity because of their 20 nuclear reactors.
The Coalition has announced it wants to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear electricity and put at least one reactor at seven sites around the country.
Last week, Dutton again deployed his favourite Canadian talking point, telling reporters: “We could be like Ontario, where they’ve got 60 or 70% nuclear in the mix, and they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”
Really cheaper?
So ubiquitous has Dutton’s talking point been that it has made its way to Prof Mark Winfield, a sustainable energy expert at Ontario’s York University. And he is puzzled.
“I have heard about this,” he told Temperature Check. “I must admit I find the notion of holding Ontario up as a model for electricity and climate policy more than a little bizarre.”
Winfield says Ontario’s electricity rates are not low by Canadian standards, but added “the situation is distorted by the [$8bn a year] subsidy the province provides out of general revenues”.
Those billions, Winfield says, would otherwise be spent on things like schools and hospitals, instead of “artificially” lowering electricity rates.
“That accounts for the bulk of the province’s annual deficit,” he says.
So does nuclear mean cheap power for Ontario?
First, let’s start with Ontario’s electricity mix. The province has 20 of Canada’s 22 nuclear reactors, providing about 59% of Ontario’s electricity.
But comparisons of electricity prices across Canada and North America don’t show that Ontario’s nuclear-heavy generation delivers particularly cheap power.
According to two analyses (here and here), Quebec, the province next door where almost all electricity comes from hydropower, gives the cheapest rates. British Columbia and Manitoba are also cheaper, and they’re also dominated by hydro.
Dutton has said Ontarians “pay around about 14 cents kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year.”
But making a fair comparison between Australian electricity prices and Ontario is almost impossible because – before we’ve even got to the subsidy – the structures and governance systems around electricity are very different.
Almost half of Ontario’s power generation is publicly owned and the prices people pay are set by a government board.
Ontarians pay for their electricity in a more sophisticated way than Australians – people can choose one of three price plans, and the price people pay for each kWh can depend, for example, on how much power they have used that month or what time of day they are using it. The cost to the customer per kWh can be as low as 3c/kWh and as high as 32c/kWh.
But Winfield says the $8bn annual subsidy that helps keep those costs down is also masking the cost of refurbishing Ontario’s existing fleet of reactors that were built between the 1970s and 1990s.
“Those projects have consistently run billions over budget and years behind schedule, and in some cases ended in write-offs,” Winfield says.
The provincial government wants to refurbish 10 of its reactors. Winfield says the cost of those refurbs isn’t known, but his own estimates stand at about $44bn.
Ontario’s government has a chequered recent history when it comes to energy policy.
Critics have pointed to the province’s “horrifically expensive” nuclear reactors that helped the collapse of the publicly owned generator in the 1990s with $42bn of debt, and ratepayers were asked to repay some of that with a charge they continued to pay until 2018.
In 2018, the provincial government cancelled 758 renewable projects, reportedly costing Ontarians about $250m.
Winfield says Ontario’s decision to sideline renewables and back nuclear will see the province relying more on gas, which he says will push up greenhouse gas emissions.
“The fundamental underlying problem, along with all of the other downsides with nuclear – waste management, major upstream impacts in terms of uranium mining and milling, security, catastrophic accident and weapons proliferation risks that just don’t exist in relation to other energy technologies – is that it hasn’t benefited from the kinds of learning curves you have seen with renewables and storage, where costs have fallen and performance improved,” he says.
“Rather, nuclear costs just keep rising.”………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/01/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-cost-price-canada-ontario
Australian nuclear news headlines 29 July – 5 August
Headlines as they come in
- ‘Renewable, not radioactive’: calls for Newcastle to remain nuclear free
- Australia should avoid small nuclear reactors until 2040s, engineers warn.
- America’s war machine: Unless Australia acquires nuclear weapons, why acquire AUKUS subs?Nuclear plant trips due to fire, and battery storage steps in to stabilises the grid
- Australians blame wind, solar for high power bills as media campaigns take hold .
- Nuclear is a toxic idea … here’s why.
- AUKUS servility just one facet of poor governance.
- Ted O’Brien sets out long-term plan for uranium-enrichment industry.
- Dutton praises Canada to sell nuclear plan. But does Ontario really have cheaper power?
- Nuclear means choosing drinking water, irrigation or power: Miles.
- Time for Dutton to front up to Collie on nuclear announcement.
AUKUS servility just one facet of poor governance
By Paul KeatingJul 31, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-servility-just-one-facet-of-poor-governance/
Richard Marles has the Navy out in force firing torpedoes at AUKUS critics.
On Friday last, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead claimed the critics need to produce evidence of any challenges to AUKUS being realised, then on Saturday, Vice Admiral Hammond, Chief of Navy, raised his periscope claiming the AUKUS debate was being ‘hijacked’ by people with ‘specific agendas’ without indicating what these agendas might be or who was likely making them.
The fact is, what clearly is being ‘hijacked’ is national accountability – accountability for the most wayward strategic and financial decision any government has taken since Federation.
Despite AUKUS’s half trillion of budgetary cost and its dangerous strategic implications there has not been one Ministerial Statement explaining its rationale, its strategic policy objective or defending its hugely distorting impact on government expenditures.
Not a coherent or persuasive word has come from the Minister for Defence or for that matter, the Prime Minister, let alone from a parliamentary debate on what is significantly a seminal turn in the country’s strategic and defence policy settings.
Vice Admiral Hammond, ignoring Australia’s geography – its residence among populous and prosperous Asian states, fell back on the old Anglo glee-club adage ‘three developed nations who have over 100 years of shared history, heritage, values and sense of purpose.’
The likelihood is that Australia will not come into possession of nuclear submarines of its own making, but what it will certainly become is landlord and host to American nuclear submarines as the United States appropriates Australian real estate in its attempts, against all odds, to maintain strategic primacy in Asia. Odds that carry the likelihood of Australia being dragged into military skirmishes with China, or indeed, worse.
So irresponsible, secretive and smug has the government been in making its decision, that no amount of ‘hijacking’ by anyone else is likely to disrupt Australia from its current path of effectively falling into American hands, or at least, being abjectly at America’s beck and call.
Republished from Australian Financial Review, July 30, 2024
Assange, CIA Surveillance and Spain’s Audencia Nacional
Australian Independent Media, August 1, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark
The sordid story on the CIA-backed operation against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange during his time cramped in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy continues to froth and thicken. US officials have persisted in their reticent attitude, refusing to cooperate with Spain’s national high court, the Audiencia Nacional, regarding its investigation into theAgency’s espionage operations against the publisher, spearheaded by the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) Global.
Since 2019, requests for assistance regarding the matter, including querying public statements by former CIA director Mike Pompeo and former head of counterintelligence, William Evanina, along with information mustered by the relevant Senate Intelligence Committee, have been made to US authorities by judges José de la Mata and Santiago Pedraz. These have been treated with a glacial silence.
On December 12, 2023, the General Subdirectorate of International Legal Cooperation furnished the US authorities “an express announcement” whether such judicial assistance would be denied.
Spain’s liaison magistrate in the US, María de las Heras García, duly revealed that the tardiness to engage had been occasioned by ongoing legal proceedings being conducted before the US District Court of the Southern District of New York. As Courtney E. Lee, trial attorney at the US Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs explained, supplying Spain’s national high court with such information would “interfere” with “ongoing US litigation”. Hardly a satisfactory response, given requests made prior to the putative litigation.
The litigation in question involved a legal suit filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York by civil rights attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler, media lawyer Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass.
In their August 2022 action, the complainants alleged that they had been the subject of surveillance during visits to Assange during his embassy tenure, conduct said to be in breach of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs accordingly argued that this entitled them to money damages and injunctive relief from former CIA director Mike Pompeo, the director of the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) GlobalDavid Morales, and UC Global itself.
On December 19, 2023 District Judge John G. Koeltl granted, in part, the US government’s motion to dismiss while denying other portions of it. The judge accepted the record of hostility shown by Pompeo to WikiLeaks openly expressed by his April 2017 speech and acknowledged that “Morales was recruited to conduct surveillance on Assange and his visitors on behalf of the CIA and that this recruitment occurred at a January 2017 private security industry convention at the Las Vegas Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The litigants found themselves on solid ground with Koeltl in the finding that they had standing to sue the intelligence organisation. “In this case, the plaintiffs need not allege, as the Government argues, that the Government will imminently use their information collected at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.” The plaintiffs would “have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by favorable ruling” if the search of the conversations and electronic devices along with the seizure of the contents of the electronic devices were found to be unlawful.
-Advertisement-
The plaintiffs also convinced the judge that they had “sufficient allegations that the CIA and Pompeo, through Morales and UC Global, violated their reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their electronic devices.” But they failed to convince Koeltl that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their conversations with Assange, given the rather odd reasoning that they were aware the publisher was already being “surveilled even before the CIA’s alleged involvement.” Nor could such an expectation arise given the acceptance of video surveillance of government buildings. Problematically, the judge also held that those surrendering devices and passports at an Embassy reception desk “assumed the risk that the information may be conveyed to the Government.”
Sadly, Pompeo was spared the legal lash and could not be held personally accountable for violating the constitutional rightsof US citizens. “As a presidential appointee confirmed by Congress […] Defendant Pompeo is in a different category of defendant from a law enforcement agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”…………………………………………………………………………..
As long as the Agency stifles and drags out proceedings on the grounds of this misused privilege, the Justice Department is bound to remain inert in the face of the Spanish investigation. https://theaimn.com/assange-cia-surveillance-and-spains-audencia-nacional/
TODAY. Who will honestly face up to the problem of nuclear wastes? Rolling Stewardship as a practical option.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Do not trust the authorities on this problem. Get real.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up in order to promote the nuclear industry, (and to blur and assuage the guilt from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
So – don’t expect the IAEA, and all the other worthy bodies set up to manage the industry, to genuinely face up to the problem. If it means adding costs to today’s industry – they’re not interested. (Just let’s pass it on to our grandchildren)
Do not trust the “respectable” media to genuinely address, let alone even understand, this problem. They can’t – (A) because they want to keep their jobs, and (B) they are intimidated by their feeling of not really understanding such technical matters – best leave it to the experts!
Trouble is – the experts all have a vested interest in the nuclear/ nuclear-weapons and associated industries.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are a courageous few – experts who see the bad stuff about nuclear. (These are soon dismissed and labelled as cranks etc) .
There are a few courageous journalists who manage to speak the truth, and still hold down their jobs in the “mainstream” media. (I will not name these, for their own employment safety.)
So – now we come to talking about nuclear wastes.
I am grateful to Gordon Edwards for coming up with a genuine examination of the question of nuclear wastes. Gordon Edwards is a mathematician, physicist, nuclear consultant, and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (www.ccnr.org). No doubt he will soon to be trashed by the “experts” as a foolish and dangerous crank.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Dr Edwards’ concept is outlined here – Rolling stewardship of nuclear wastes. In brief, it means that we should take responsibility now for nuclear waste – store it safely and strongly above ground, away from large water bodies, and monitor it, repair and repackage containers. This is an alternative to the present plan for bury it and forget about it – leave it to future generations to cope with any issues.
This stewardship plan is expensive – the costs of making the containers really strong, and kept in repair, and the ongoing work of monitoring and repair. Indeed it will add to the already well-known diseconomics of the industry.
So the authorities and experts will not like it. But perhaps – some will. Some will join the ranks of the discredited critics of the nuclear industry. It would be something to be proud of – to join with Gordon Edwards and others who look towards a positive plan – as we exit from the nuclear age.
Nuclear is a toxic idea … here’s why
By Environment Victoria
Clean energy is already here, generating 40% of our electricity in 2023! It’s on our rooftops, co-existing on farms, embraced by local businesses, and stored for later use by battery technology.
It’s the most affordable form of energy, and it’s growing fast. Which is great news, because the more clean energy we use, the less dirty coal and gas we burn, and the less damage we do to our climate.
But nuclear energy could threaten this progress. Nuclear is horribly costly (both to produce and for energy bills), would take decades to build, and is totally unnecessary.
Nuclear is just a new distraction designed to undo Australia’s hard work and stall the renewable energy.
Here are 4 reasons nuclear energy in Australia is a toxic idea.
Nuclear advocates claim to want mature discussion on nuclear, but we’ve been here before! Like ‘clean coal’, carbon capture & storage (CCS), and the ‘gas fired recovery’ that came before it, nuclear energy is just a new distraction to keep us burning dirty coal for as long as possible.
In 2015 a South Australian Royal Commission found Nuclear in Australia made no economic sense. [1]
In 2020 a Victorian inquiry into nuclear found “substantial evidence that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation …” [2]
And this year the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) released a report suggesting that if Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) ever make it off the drawing-board, it’s unlikely they would be cost-effective until the mid to late late 2040s. That’s 20 years away! [3]
2. Nukes would be a nightmare for our energy bills!
As you can see from the below graph,[on original] nuclear is by far the most expensive way to power our homes. [4]
The cost of building large scale nuclear is eye-watering. Best case scenario, constructing just one nuclear plant would cost $8.65 billion. But Australia has never built a nuclear power station before, so it’s very likely this price would be much higher, possibly as much as $17 billion or more. [5]
Nuclear energy projects have a long history of delays and massive cost blowouts. In the UK, the Hinkley Point C reactor was originally budgeted to cost $35 billion (AUD) but will now cost up to $94 billion (AUD). And this is in a country that already has an established nuclear industry! [6]
For this reason, superannuation funds and banks have refused to back nuclear as it doesn’t stack up economically, so the Coalition has conceded taxpayers would need to pay the full amount.
It’s a different story for clean energy. The Federal Government’s Capital Investment Scheme (CIS) is driving billions of dollars in private investment in wind, solar and batteries (which means taxpayers don’t have to oot all the costs).
In fact, the first large scale auction for battery storage was massively oversubscribed, showing huge investor interest in Australian renewable energy projects. [7]
3. It will take too long
Australia has no nuclear energy industry, so developing the required infrastructure, regulations and training programs needed would be a long process. The most credible estimates show nukes wouldn’t be producing any energy in Australia until at least 2040. [8]
If we were to stop building clean energy and wait for nuclear, we would need to extend the lives of coal power plants that are already old, unreliable and expensive to operate. That would mean more than two BILLION additional tons of climate pollution between now and 2050, compared to the Australian energy market operators’ latest energy transition plan. [9]
Alternatively, wind and solar projects can be up and operational within a couple of years. [10]
4. We don’t need it!
In 2010 just 10% of our electricity production came from clean energy, but by 2023 that number had soared to almost 40%. [11]
Rapid advances in energy technology, including large scale batteries, means we no longer require energy grids to be designed around the old ‘baseload’ model, where large, centralised power stations operated at a constant rate and can’t quickly or efficiently vary their output. Clean energy grids are being designed around a combination of variable but predictable solar and wind, and dispatchable sources. ‘Dispatchable’ means they can quickly ramp up and down their output like batteries and pumped hydro.
This is a new way of designing an energy grid. But we have study upon study showing exactly how it is possible using the technology we already have. See here, here and here.
This new model works for a number of reasons. Solar and wind output can be predicted in advance, allowing grid operators to plan and engage the required dispatchable output. You can also use ‘demand response’ mechanisms, where large industrial energy users are paid to reduce consumption at rare times of very high demand. This is much more cost effective than building generation capacity that might only be needed a few hours each year – which occurs in baseload systems. As nuclear generation is not flexible, introducing it to the energy mix would require rooftop solar system to be disconnected from the grid during the day! [12]
As you can see from the graph below, [on original] even if the Coalition’s proposed nuclear plants were built, they would only be a small, but very expensive, fraction of our energy grid. We would still need to move full steam ahead with renewable energy.
Nuclear is costly, time intensive and unnecessary. We need to cut climate pollution now, not in 25 years’ time, and clean energy sources like wind and solar with battery storage are the fastest and lowest-cost way to achieve this.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 