Gina Rinehart’s threat to the proud independence of Australia’s Fairfax newspapers
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence.
In 1979, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued: “We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the media and then educating the public”.
The Conversation, By Andrew Jaspan, Editor, 11 Feb 12, News of Gina Rinehart’s tilt at Fairfax Media is a circuit breaker in the never-ending story of the media company’s decline. As a former editor of The Age, one of Fairfax’s prized mastheads, I have spent the day wondering where this might end. Whichever way, it looks bad for quality, independent journalism. This is a defining moment for the kind of Australia we want….
Fairfax’s papers have an awful lot of clout. The combined audience for The Age in print and online is about 1 million readers per day, and the SMH just above. For those who follow these things, that’s higher than for any Channel 7, 9, 10 or ABC news bulletins. And more importantly, the audience for the Fairfax papers, including The Australian Financial Review, is the influential and affluent “AB” market. For these people, what the Fairfax papers report, matters.
Unlike the tabloids read by the bulk of Australians. The Age, SMH and The Fin, along with The Australian, set Australia’s news agenda and are slavishly followed by the radio talk-back and TV news shows.
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence. In 2007 she placed full
page ads in The Age and SMH against then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s
proposed mining tax. That campaign ended with the removal of Rudd and
the collapse of the tax. Now instead of buying pages, she wants to buy
the papers.
Such motivation is deep in the Rinehart family genes. In a 1979
polemic called Wake up Australia, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued:
“We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the
media and then educating the public”.
And on the miners’ right to mine anywhere, he wrote: “Nothing should
be sacred from mining whether it’s your ground, my ground, the
blackfellow’s ground or anybody else’s. So the question of Aboriginal
land rights and things of this nature shouldn’t exist.”
The Murdoch press in Australia is already favourably disposed to the
miners and the Minerals Council view of the world. Fairfax provides an
alternative view. And one that Gina no doubt wants neutered, silenced
or turned around. Perhaps by Gina’s favourite columnist, Andrew Bolt?
Whether Australia retains an independent and semi-pluralist media will
become clear within the near future. In the meantime, The Conversation
will keep a close eye on this matter of national importance.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/02/07/latest-wrap-of-health-and-medical-reading-from-the-conversation/
“I’m not interested in the fanatics:” Dutton responds to science academy’s report on nuclear SMRs
Giles Parkinson, Jul 25, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/im-not-interested-in-the-fanatics-dutton-responds-to-science-academys-report-on-nuclear-smrs/
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has dismissed a report on nuclear small modular reactors by the highly respected Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, saying the Coalition has consulted its own experts and it is not interested in the views of “fanatics.”
ATSE on Wednesday described SMRs as a “chimera”, and said they were unlikely to be able to be built in Australia before the mid to late 2040s, more than a decade before the Coalition’s timeline of 2035.
The report by ATSE is in line with other assessments by the CSIRO, the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, former chief scientist and virtually everyone in the energy industry.
But Dutton dismissed it out of hand.
“What this report shows is that the lights are going to go out, and that wind, in particular, is not reliable,” he told journalists in the Hunter Valley, not far from one of the sites identified by the Coalition to host a nuclear power plant, according to a transcript posted on his website.
Actually, the ATSE report says nothing of the sort. It doesn’t address grid reliability problems, nor does it look at SMR costs or waste issues.
It observes that the technology does not yet exist in OECD countries, will not likely be commercially available for another 20 years, and concludes that any move to go earlier – as the Coalition wants to do – would be both costly and risky.
Dutton, however, is undeterred by such expert arguments, and by fact-checkers.
“Well, we’ve done analysis and we’ve spoken to experts. Our analysis is that we can have nuclear into the system 2035 to 2037 in the first two sites, and then we continue to roll it out from there,” he said.
Asked again about the ATSE report, and its view that 2035 is simply not doable, Dutton said: “I’m not interested in the fanatics from both sides of the argument.”
He then went on to repeat the same misinformation that he trots out at every opportunity: That Australia is the only G20 country not doing nuclear (not true), that the market operator has warned of blackouts and brownouts (not true), and that it plans 28,000 kms of new transmission (not part of its central scenario, only in the export superpower scenario and by 2050).
“You can’t have – as Barnaby (Joyce) rightly pointed out today, and I thought it was a great way to put it – you can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power,” he said.
Apart, of course, from South Australia, which is already running at 70 per cent wind and solar, has a bipartisan target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2027, and is luring new industry attracted to the state by low cost and low emissions power.
See also: Peter Dutton and crew get close to planned nuclear power plant site and repeat same nonsense.
And: Forget EVs, the Coalition has a plan for nuclear fuelled hydrogen cars
Time for Dutton to produce the nuclear evidence
Kevin Bailey, -Yet another group – this time the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering – has, based on existing evidence, questioned the Coalition’s nuclear plans (″Experts query Dutton’s nuclear plan″, 24/7). Their view adds to those of the Australian Energy Market Operator, several business groups and the National Farmers Federation who have recently expressed similar opinions. Notwithstanding this, Dutton continues to claim, without explicitly naming those whom he describes as ″some of Australia’s cleverest minds″, that he knows best. It’s about time he produced not only the names of the people who have those minds but also the evidence on which his claims are based. And while he’s at it, perhaps he can also provide the detailed cost-benefit analysis.
Fiona Colin, – The fading safer future for our children. Yet another nail in Peter Dutton’s nuclear coffin comes from the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering. The academy’s president says ″they are not a viable part of that [decarbonisation] solution″ because they are not commercially available anywhere and therefore would not get us to where we need to be. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear: this is the critical decade if we are to have any hope of limiting warming to safe levels, i.e. 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Current policies have the planet on track to warming of around 3 degrees. The CSIRO calculated that in 2023 ″Australia emitted 465.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent″, 0.8 per cent more than in 2022. The Coalition seeks to delay action to bring down emissions. Labor’s new gas and coal will not bring down emissions. Carbon capture and storage and offsets will not bring down emissions. The opposition continues to deride and stymie the rollout of renewables. Fossil fuel interests continue to lobby and pressure governments to enable expansion. Meanwhile, consumers are denied the cheapest form of electricity in history, and a safer future for their children.
The action must be now Graeme Lechte, The article (24/7) highlights the fact that any plans for a nuclear energy program will take decades rather than years to establish. This, at a time when the world just experienced its hottest day on record. We need immediate action on lowering emissions not a plan that wouldn’t be up and running until the 2040s.Other questions also need to be asked of the proponents of nuclear. How much will the establishment of a nuclear industry cost? Exactly how long will it take to establish? What will be the percentage of energy needs supplied by the nuclear industry? Exactly where will the reactors be situated and what effect will they have on our precious water resources? Finally, and most importantly, how and where will the resultant radioactive waste be stored. Until supporters of nuclear come up with the answers to these questions support for a nuclear industry will gain no traction.
An honest discussion is needed, Jennifer Gerrand,
Peter Dutton, when recently spruiking the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan in the small town of Murchison, a Queensland electorate the Coalition has earmarked for a small modular reactor (SMR), says he wants an honest discussion about nuclear power. How can there be an honest discussion when he hasn’t provided costs of their plans for such. He doesn’t name ″the smartest minds in Australia″ who, he claims, attest to nuclear power being cheaper than renewable wind or solar energy. Strong, consistent, evidence-based disagreement to such plans by energy experts has continued from the time that policy was first announced.Nor does Dutton acknowledge, while mentioning the name Bill Gates, that Gates recently advised 7.30 journalist Sarah Ferguson that, due to present concerns about aspects of SMRs, Australia should wait several years before making decisions about their appropriateness for our continent’s needs.Jennifer Gerrand, Carlton North
‘Jewish Voice for Peace’ protesters arrested on Capitol Hill
- The demonstrators are from Jewish Voice for Peace
- Demonstrators can be seen wearing shirts saying ‘Stop Arming Israel’
- Biden and Netanyahu scheduled to meet later this week
Evan Lambert, Urja Sinha, JUL 23, 2024, https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/israel-palestine/pro-palestinian-protesters-capitol-arrests/
(NewsNation) — Approximately 200 protesters have been arrested after they gathered in the Cannon Rotunda to protest the Israeli government, according to U.S. Capitol Police.
Organizers of the demonstration say they are from Jewish Voice for Peace, an American anti-Zionist Jewish advocacy organization that is “critical of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories,” according to its website.
Video from the protest shows dozens wearing red shirts sitting in circles in the Cannon House Office Building’s rotunda. The demonstrators wore shirts reading “Stop Arming Israel” and “Not in Our Name.”
The protest comes as President Joe Biden is expected to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, a U.S. official confirmed to NewsNation. Netanyahu will also address Congress during his U.S. visit.
Capitol Police have cleared out all the demonstrators from the rotunda, writing on X that, “We told the people, who legally entered, to stop or they would be arrested. They did not stop, so we are arresting them.”
TODAY. Militarism: How NATO is co-opting women and young people – with a veneer of peace and fun.
This isn’t new. It has long been a tactic of the nuclear lobby. What makes it easier now is the enormous influence of the military lobby everywhere, and the global spread of NATO.
Today I read professor Joan Roelofs’ article on NATO and realised that the tactic of using women and young people has moved from promoting the occasional young, and preferably female enthusiast, to creating institutions that cover up militarism, and make it look benign and peaceful.
The nuclear lobby has long been using “fun” young individuals to spread its message.
“Nuclear for Australia” was headed by 17 year-old William Shackel
The nuclear industry, wherever possible, gets its agenda into schools, often with a fun exercise about rockets
I now notice that it is pretty much obligatory for any military gathering to have at least one woman there, appropriately decked out in the right warlike gear.
While every survey comes up with figures about women liking weapons and war much less than men do, there seems to be a concerted effort to make it look as if there are women in charge at the top levels of the militaristic tree. At the recent NATO Summit lineup of 32 important people, there were 4 women. And of course, the very photogenic Ursula von der Leyen is prominent – often the only woman present at a NATO gathering.
Tragically, so many civilian jobs are linked with NATO – in areas like science, medical technology, information technology, academia, the arts, and even in progressive and human rights movements. So, through these connections the NATO message is spread, obscuring the reality that NATO is a militaristic institution, controlled by the USA, designed to make ready for war – originally against China, now against Russia, too.
The USA is controlled by corporations, especially weapons makers – it matters little whether Republicans or Democrats are in government.
NATO is now perfecting its veneer – spreading its influence through multiple nations, and multiple areas of society, an setting up its own cute little front groups, as named in the picture above.
The real decisions on NATO weapons, including nuclear, and their use, will be made by the same cabal of militaristic men, while NATO looks good, with its window-dressing of women and young people.
Clean Energy Sector Rallies Against Nuclear ‘Mistruths’
by News Of The Area – Modern Media –
THE clean energy industry has accused nuclear energy proponents of threatening the nation’s fragile hold on vital economic reform with “mistruths and outright disinformation”.
“The Australian public are being confused and misled,” Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton told the industry’s annual summit in Sydney on Tuesday.
“We need to remember the vast majority want wind and solar and hydro to be central to our energy future,” he told business leaders and investors.
He accused “bad faith actors” of preying on anxious communities who feared uncertainty after an energy crisis and amid ongoing cost-of-living pressures, which could be alleviated by cheaper renewable power.
“Vested interests are stepping up to tell their story and peppering it with mistruths and outright disinformation,” Mr Thornton said.
Nuclear power was the “battering ram of bad faith actors” despite it being more expensive and two decades away at best, he said.
Australia has doubled its amount of renewable energy in the past five years and must again by 2030, as coal-fired power plants are phased out and new electrified industries grow.
Coalition energy spokesman Keith Pitt, who says nuclear is the “only option” to achieve net zero emissions and keep the lights on, is due to address the summit on Wednesday.
Dismissing the nuclear debate as a “distraction”, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Jenny McAllister said it would leave “a pretty big gap” if the coalition pressed pause on renewables now to install nuclear power in the 2040s.
Announcing the fast-tracking of a certification scheme for new exports, Senator McAllister said it would become increasingly important for businesses to be able to account for their products’ emissions intensity to retain access to major markets.
“The guarantee of origin scheme will give Australian companies a competitive advantage by providing government-backed certification of the carbon intensity of key green products,” she said.
A crucial component of the $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia program, the scheme begins with renewable hydrogen in 2025 before expanding to sustainable aviation fuel, green steel and aluminium, and biomethane and biogas.
As the climate-accounting backbone of new green industries, it is designed to allow producers, exporters and users to prove where a product was made and the emissions associated with its production and transport.
Digital certificates, backed by proof of renewable energy use, will be used to establish eligibility for tax credits under the $6.7 billion Hydrogen Production Tax Credit announced in the May budget, and trigger the development of other new industries.
As almost all of Australia’s trading partners have net-zero commitments, official proof of emissions could avoid costly tariffs or trade bans on hydrogen or ammonia production that relies on coal or gas-fired electricity rather than renewable energy.
“Guarantee of origin is a key to new market opportunities for Australian energy exporters in the race to net-zero,” Senator McAllister said.
The first Australia-India renewable energy dialogue was held alongside the Australian Clean Energy Summit, with India aiming for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Despite being big coal and gas exporters and users, the two countries say they share a net zero commitment.
Dutton comes to town to sell us nuclear power
July 25, 2024 by Darren Cutrupi, https://www.981powerfm.com.au/local-news/dutton-comes-to-town-to-sell-us-nuclear-power/
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton predicts the Muswellbrook community largely supports his push to establish a nuclear power station at Liddell.
The Federal Coalition Leader has come to that conclusion after visiting the town yesterday where he met with a few hand-picked local business operators and the local council.
Mr Dutton said locals understand the need to go nuclear.
He claims re-electing Labor at the next national poll will result in large job losses in the Upper Hunter.
Mr Dutton said Labor’s renewables-only focus will send the Upper Hunter and Australia backwards.
UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities back joint statement condemning AUKUS nuclear proliferation
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have joined environmental and peace groups around the world in endorsing a statement that will be delivered to a conference at the United Nations.
The 2024 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee will meet today to begin work to make preparations for the next conference of signing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (or NPT).
The statement will be delivered to committee delegates by Jemila Rushton, Acting Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia. The NFLAs are a member of ICAN.
Particular reference is made to the adverse impact of AUKUS, the military alliance forged between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States in opposition to China, on geopolitics in the Pacific.
Amongst its more controversial elements is the provision of nuclear-powered submarines by the other partners to Australia. We share the concern of other signatories that AUKUS violates in spirit both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Rarotonga – South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The submarines will be powered by weapons-grade nuclear fuel, supplied by the other partners and will operate from Australian bases within a nuclear free zone.
Although present plans provide for these submarines to be conventionally armed, it is not inconceivable that over time they could be rearmed with nuclear weapons. The Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament, Peter Dutton, is currently actively lobbying for Australia to establish a civil nuclear programme and such a programme is critical to support the development of nuclear weapons capacity.
The statement has also been endorsed by our colleagues Labrats, CND Cymru and Together against Sizewell C.
For more information please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
AUKUS and the pride of politicians
By Nick Deane, Jul 24, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-and-the-pride-of-politicians/
With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has become an obstacle to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.
For my own purposes, I have been keeping a record of articles I have read under the topic ‘AUKUS’. There are now some 300 such items on my spreadsheet – nearly all of them finding fault of one kind or another with this extraordinary project.
The criticisms deal with a wide variety of aspects (mainly focussed on the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines). To summarise a few, the AUKUS project:-
- Leads Australia in the direction of war;
- Has done damage to Australia’s international reputation;
- Destabilises Australia’s immediate region;
- Brings a nuclear industry with it;
- Introduces the intractable problem of nuclear waste disposal;
- Damages our relationship with our most important trading partner;
- Causes a significant loss of sovereignty;
- Is not good value for money;
- Diverts resources away from social programs;
- Will not be as effective as conventional submarines;
- Is aggressive and not defensive, and
- Will probably not come to fruition in any case.
Highly respected commentators, such as Hugh White, Paul Keating, Sam Roggeveen, Andrew Fowler, Rex Patrick and Clinton Fernandes, have all raised significant concerns. Meanwhile ‘civil society’ is also getting mobilised, with ‘anti-AUKUS’ groups springing up in all the major centres.
However, the proponents of AUKUS (and the mainstream media) appear content to ignore the valid, rational arguments being put forward against it. Indeed, industry-based conferences are going ahead as if there is nothing about to the project that needs to be questioned, and, no doubt, secret, military training programs are already well under way. Within the military-industrial establishment, the project is gathering momentum. Those in the military are excited by the prospect of controlling a new, highly lethal weapon, whilst those in the industry are attracted by the smell of the limitless funds being devoted to it.
It is disturbing to have to concede that rational argument appears to have little impact on AUKUS’s proponents. However there is an even more worrying aspect to add. That is the pride of politicians. For the longer the process continues, with all its secrecy and in the absence of meaningful debate at high levels, the harder it is for politicians to change course. Abandoning the project would already cause senior members of both major parties considerable ‘loss of face’. If it falls over (as some predict), or if opposition becomes a vote-winner at the next election, that ‘loss of face’ will be highly embarrassing. With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has thus become an obstacle to to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.
In an ideal, democratic society, voters and the politicians they elect appraise themselves of the ‘pros and cons’ of controversial matters and make decisions on a rational basis. If they do that in the case of AUKUS, it is surely doomed. Politicians beware!
TODAY. The digital system is a threat to the nuclear industry – it’ll get worse with AI
At last, somebody noticed! And the amazing thing is that this warning from think tank Chatham House came on July 12 – 10 days before the global digital outage.
I have wondered about the cybersecurity of nuclear facilities. There have been warnings – that terrorists or “bad actors” – might attack them digitally.
But now – the global collapse of information technology showed the awful truth- things can go wrong with just a teensy little stuffup of “normal” digital operations!
Bad enough if airline booking systems suddenly don’t work, and cash registers at supermarkets don’t work, and all sorts of economic systems grind to an expensive halt.
But what if digital things go wrong in nuclear facilities – reactors, cooling systems, waste management facilities , and hell – nuclear weapons!
But surely, I, a mere amateur, am exaggerating!
Well, the experts at Chatham House are on the same page as I am:
many nuclear plants rely on software that is “built on insecure foundations and requiring frequent patches or updates” or “has reached the end of its supported lifespan and can no longer be updated”.
with operators opting to run the facility by a central computer system without human presence. Increased reliance on cloud systems to run infrastructure is bound to enhance the cybersecurity risks.
Even Chatham House still uses that lying term “cloud” system, when we all know damn well – there is no benign “cloud” – only acres of steel canisters and conglomerations of metal and wires.
We now live in a strange global digital monoculture. A single software update gone wrong and Microsoft Windows computers around the world crash. There is something awfully wrong with our lives being dependent on one, or a very few, digital systems run by great corporations run by a few powerful squillionaires.
And of course, that includes the so-called “defense” systems – limbering up to attack China etc. It’s a sobering thought that Armageddon might come – not from a decision by some evil dictator – but just from a teensy computer glitch.
AI, now being incorporated in weapons systems, might now make digital technology more vulnerable to glitches?
The global IT outage has surely been a wake-up call – as businesses, governments and individuals cope with its expensive after-effects.
But it should be even more of a wake-up call for the public – to think about the danger we are all in, allowing the nuclear industry to proliferate.
Community alliance against Coalition’s nuclear policy
ABC Listen, 22 July 24
Political friction appears to be building in the seven regions set to host government-built nuclear reactors as part of the Coalition’s vision for the future of Australia’s energy mix.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has visited the Callide coal-fired power station in Queensland, where he has talked up job creation and cheaper energy.
Meanwhile, community organisations in the areas selected in the Coalition’s nuclear policy have joined forces in an anti-nuclear campaign.
Featured:
Peter Dutton, Opposition leader
Wendy Farmer, Voices of the Valley president
James Khan, Collie traditional owner
Credits, Jon Daly, Reporter
Transcript
……………………………….Jon Daly: The Coalition’s earmarked seven sites across five states where it wants to co-locate nuclear reactors with retiring coal-fired power stations. Two will be in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one each for Victoria, South Australia and West Australia. The Opposition claims the sites would make good use of existing transmission lines and local workforces, though Mr Dutton is yet to reveal how much the nuclear builds would cost taxpayers.
Peter Dutton: We’ll have more to say about costings in due course and again as we know in somewhere like Ontario they’re paying a fraction for electricity compared to what we’re paying here. It’s a really important point that nuclear provides cheaper electricity. There’s a big up-front capital cost.
Jon Daly: The Coalition claims the first nuclear plant could be up and running by 2035. The Coalition has flagged two and a half years of local community consultation, but communities would not ultimately be given a chance to veto nuclear plans in their area. In Victoria’s coal heartland of the La Trobe Valley, Voices of the Valley President Wendy Farmer says that’s not consultation, that’s dictation.
Wendy Farmer: In other words, we are going into communities to tell them exactly what the Coalition wants to do and don’t argue with us because that’s what we’re going to do to your regions. That is not the way any community would expect to be treated.
Jon Daly: Voices of the Valley and other community organisations in the seven selected regions have launched an alliance opposing the current plan.
Wendy Farmer: So we thought that by the seven regions getting together, it just gives strength to all the regions and we can support each other. And we can actually do a much louder call for Australians to support the regions to say no to nuclear.
Jon Daly: What’s been the reaction from, say, your local community as the details of this proposal have unfolded?
Wendy Farmer: There’s a mixed reaction, Jon. You know, some do support having nuclear. They want the jobs. Then you’ve got the other people that are just saying we do not want nuclear reactors at all, ever, in our region.
Jon Daly: In West Australia, Collie’s coal-fired power station is closing by 2029 and the town is trying to find industries to replace those lost jobs. The Coalition has picked the town as a site for nuclear power. James Khan is a traditional owner of the area. He’s a Wilman man of the Bibbulmun Nation and he says he’s dead against nuclear energy being built there.
James Khan: Well, my thoughts on that there is negative. It’s a negative. It’s why are we going into something that we don’t know nothing about and it could affect everything, the vicinity of it. Nuclear reactors is too dangerous, too slow and it’s too expensive.
Samantha Donovan: Traditional owner James Khan speaking to our reporter Jon Daly. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/pm/community-alliance-against-coalition-s-nuclear-policy/104128606
Czech nuclear deal shows CSIRO GenCost is too optimistic, and new nukes are hopelessly uneconomic
John Quiggin, Jul 21, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/czech-nuclear-deal-shows-csiro-gencost-is-too-optimistic-and-new-nukes-are-hopelessly-uneconomic/
The big unanswered question about nuclear power in Australia is how much it would cost. The handful of plants completed recently in the US and Europe have run way over time and over budget, but perhaps such failures can be avoided. On the other hand, the relatively successful Barakah project in the United Arab Emirates was undertaken in conditions that aren’t comparable to a democratic high-wage country like Australia. Moreover, the cost of the project, wrapped up in a long-term contract for both construction and maintenance, remains opaque. Most other projects are being constructed by Chinese or Russian firms, not an option for Australia.
In these circumstances, CSIRO’s Gencost project relied mainly on evidence from Korea, one of the few developed countries to maintain a nuclear construction program. Adjusting for the costs of starting from scratch, CSIRO has come up with an estimated construction cost for a 1000 MW nuclear plant of at least $A8.6 billion, leading to an estimated Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) of between $163/MWh-$264/MWh, for large-scale nuclear. But, given the limited evidence base, critics like Dick Smith have been able to argue that CSIRO has overestimated the capital costs.
Thanks to a recent announcement from Czechia, we now have the basis for a more informed estimate. Ever since the commissioning its last nuclear plant in 2003, Czech governments have sought commercial agreements for the construction of more nuclear power plants, with little success until recently.
Finally, after a process beginning in 2020, the Czech government sought tenders from three firms to build at least two, and possibly four 1000 MW reactors. After Westinghouse was excluded for unspecified failures to meet tender conditions, two contenders remained: EDF and KNHP. On 17 July it was announced that KNHP had submitted the winning bid, which, coincidentally, set the cost per GW at $8.6 billion.
Sadly for nuclear advocates, that figure is in $US. Converted to $A, it’s 12.8 billion, around 50 per cent more than the CSIRO Gencost estimate. At that price, the LCOE, even on the most favorable assumptions, will exceed $225/MWh.
And unlike the case in Australia, Czechia is offering a brownfield site, at no additional cost. The new plants will replace existing Soviet-era reactors at Dukovany. By contrast, in Australia under Dutton’s proposals, the costs of a nuclear plant would need to include the compulsory acquisition of existing sites, from mostly unwilling vendors.
The bad news doesn’t stop there. The (inevitably optimistic) target date for electricity generation is 2038, about the time Australia’s last coal plants will be closing. But the Czechs have at least a five year head start on Australia, even assuming that a Dutton government could begin a tender process soon after taking office. In reality, it would be necessary to establish and staff both a publicly owned nuclear generation enterprise and a nuclear regulatory agency with an appropriate legislative framework.
And there’s one more wrinkle. Westinghouse, excluded from the Czech bid is engaged on long-running litigation with KNHP, claiming a breach of intellectual property. It’s been unsuccessful so far, but a final ruling is not expected until 2025. If Westinghouse succeeds, the Czech project will almost certainly be delayed.
Summing up, taking the Czech announcement as a baseline, building two to four 1000 MW nuclear plants in Australia would probably cost $50-$100 billion, and not be complete until well into the 2040s.
If nuclear power is so costly, why have the Czechs chosen to pursue this technology. The explanation is partly historical. The former Czechoslovakia was an early adopter of nuclear power and, despite the usual delays and cost overruns, enthusiasm for the technology seems to have persisted.
More significant, however, is the influence of one man, Vaclav Klaus, a dominant figure in Czech politics from the dissolution of the Soviet bloc to the 2010s. Apart from sharing the same first name, Klaus has little in common with the architect of Czech freedom, Vaclav Havel. Klaus was, and remains an extreme climate science denialist, whose views are reflected by the rightwing party he founded, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS). Although Klaus himself left office under a cloud in 2013, ODS remained a dominant force.
The current Czech Prime Minister, Petr Fiala (also ODS) has followed the same evolution as other ‘sceptics’, shifting from outright denial to what Chris Bowen has described as “all-too-hard-ism”. And with high carbon prices in Europe, persisting with coal is even less tenable than in Australia. In political terms, nuclear power is the ideal solution to the problem of replacing coal without embracing renewables. It’s just a pity about the economics.
With luck, Australia can learn from the Czech lesson. Even under the favorable conditions of a brownfield site and an established nuclear industry, new nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic.
John Quiggin is a professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy downplays Rockingham residents’ concerns of AUKUS nuclear waste storage
advocacy group the Medical Association for Prevention of War [MAPW] said Mr Conroy was wrong to equate nuclear submarine waste with medical waste.
“The vast majority of nuclear waste from hospitals is very short-lived waste or very low level waste, both of which go to normal rubbish streams after a month or two,” MAPW vice-president Margaret Beavis said in a statement.
“The proposed submarine waste is low level waste (LLW), which needs isolation from the environment for 300 years.”
By Nicolas Perpitch, 23 July 24 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-23/pat-conroy-rockingham-garden-island-aukus-nuclear-waste-storage/104131462
In short:
The government has plans to temporarily store nuclear waste arising from its AUKUS contracts on Garden Island.
Residents in the nearby City of Rockingham have expressed concern about that, but the Defence Industry Minister says people shouldn’t worry.
What’s next?
The waste’s final storage place is unknown at this point, with the minister saying it will be on defence land.
The Albanese government has sought to dispel community concerns surrounding a planned radioactive waste management site off Perth’s coast for AUKUS nuclear submarines.
It comes as the chiefs of navy of the three AUKUS countries — the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia — met for the first time at the HMAS Stirling naval base on Garden Island, 50 kilometres south of the Perth CBD and about five kilometres off the coast of Rockingham, where the submarines will dock and be serviced.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the nuclear safety watchdog, has issued a licence to the Australian Submarine Agency to prepare a site on HMAS Stirling for a low-level radiation waste management and maintenance site, to be known as the “Controlled Industrial Facility”.
It will be a workshop for servicing and repairing the nuclear submarines and will temporarily store the waste.
Some Rockingham residents have expressed alarm at the prospect of a radiation site just off the coast.
Among the submissions to ARPANSA on the facility, concerns were expressed about residents’ safety and the potential for radiation leaks.
But federal Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy has sought to ease those fears, saying there was no risk to the community.
“This is akin to what occurs in 100 other sites around the country, anywhere that has a hospital that deals with medical imagery that involves radioactive isotopes has exactly the same level of waste,” Mr Conroy said.
Specifically, the radioactive waste would be material that Australian sailors and civilians use to maintain the nuclear submarines.
“Think things like gloves, and other things that naturally become slightly radioactive as they handle componentry. So this is not other people’s waste. This is Australian waste,” Mr Conroy said.
However, advocacy group the Medical Association for Prevention of War [MAPW] said Mr Conroy was wrong to equate nuclear submarine waste with medical waste.
“The vast majority of nuclear waste from hospitals is very short-lived waste or very low level waste, both of which go to normal rubbish streams after a month or two,” MAPW vice-president Margaret Beavis said in a statement.
“The proposed submarine waste is low level waste (LLW), which needs isolation from the environment for 300 years.”
Final storage site unknown
The radioactive waste will be temporarily stored at the HMAS Stirling site, before it is taken to a permanent repository elsewhere for AUKUS-nuclear submarine reactors and related radioactive waste.
But Mr Conroy did not say where that would be, only that it would be on defence land to be acquired by the defence forces.
Under the AUKUS security agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom announced in 2021, Australia will acquire nuclear technology to build and sustain its own nuclear submarines.
ARPANSA received 165 submissions about the waste and workshop facility proposal during a 30-day consultation period, but has not made them publicly available.
The facility will also need separate approvals for construction and operation.
Nuclear + Solar In Australia = A Huge Waste Of Energy
July 23, 2024 by Michael Bloch, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-renewables-australia-mb2969/
The operation of just one nuclear power station in Queensland would require cutting off renewable energy output equivalent to tens of thousands of home solar power systems every day says Queensland Conservation Council (QCC).
The Coalition wants to see nuclear plants at what are or will eventually be shuttered coal power sites around the country, including two in Queensland – one at Callide and the other at Tarong. The Coalition’s plan would mean increased burning of fossil fuels for many years while these power stations are being constructed. Australia’s existing ban aside, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive and slow to build, and nuclear power doesn’t play well with renewable energy.
Nuclear power stations can’t be switched on and off as demand dictates. While output can be dialled down to a degree, there may still often be electricity surplus to demand during the “solar window” each day; and this could pose a threat to grid stability.
Nuclear-Powered Home Solar Shutdowns?
Something has to give during these times – either the expensive nuclear electricity or the cheap power from renewable energy. This could include home solar systems.
The tools needed for remote solar power system shutdowns are already in place in Queensland. Ergon Energy and Energex have the capability to remotely switch off some systems via a “dumb” device called a GSD, which is meant to be a tool of last-resort.
But “last resort” may become more common in a grid with nuclear power. And it’s simply not needed, as by the time the first nuclear plant could be built – around 2040 at the earliest – technologies such as batteries and pumped hydro should be providing the flexible storage needed to support renewables.
According to Queensland Conservation Council:
“Baseload generation is what our power system was built on, but it’s not what we need in the future. Saying that we need baseload generation is like saying that we need floppy disks to transfer files between computers.”
In its report titled Delayed Reaction: Why Queensland Will Never Need Nuclear Energy, the QCC estimates 3,700 GWh of cheap renewable energy would need to be wasted every year just to allow a single 1GW nuclear power station to run.
“This means the equivalent of an average of 45,000 Queensland household solar systems would need to be shut off every day.”
The organisation bases its estimates on the Australian Energy Market Operator’s “Step Change” scenario in the AEMO’s 2024 Integrated System Plan.
Queensland is not an island. Interconnectors between the state and New South Wales allow it to export power south. But if the Coalition’s plans reach fruition, there may not be anywhere to export it to. Whether it’s shutting down home solar or more curtailment of large-scale wind and PV, the “solution” is an awful waste of cheap-as-chips power.
Nuclear Spectre Scaring Investors
Even if the Coalition’s nuclear dream isn’t achieved, that it exists is starting to make some renewable energy investors nervous. Policy uncertainty has held back Australia’s renewable energy transition in years gone by. This rehashed nuclear debate has the potential do the same.
Raising this rotten old chestnut (yet again) seems to be an Opposition specialty. Whichever way it turns out, the distraction of nuclear power in Australia will be a huge waste of time, money – and energy.
Queensland has nearly doubled its renewable energy capacity in five years says QCC. While there are plenty of large-scale facilities operating or currently under construction, a significant part of the growth is associated with home solar power in QLD. This has fundamentally changed when the state needs energy to support the grid and QCC believes it’s where the Opposition should be directing its attention.
“We would like to see the Federal Opposition focus on a real plan for bringing down emissions and power prices and that would mean backing renewable energy and storage.”
Peter Dutton visits Queensland back country in nuclear energy push
Peter Dutton has hit the sticks to promote his controversial nuclear energy plan but remains mum on how much the “essential” project will cost.
news.com.au Nathan Schmidt, July 22, 2024
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has for the first time spruiked the Coalition’s controversial nuclear energy plan in an electorate earmarked for a new “modular reactor”, promising the ambitious project will be more efficient than replacing wind turbines “every 25 years”.
The Liberal leader on Monday championed the contested energy project in Mount Murchison, a town of little more than 100 people in the Shire of Banana on Queensland’s central coast, following the unveiling earlier this year of the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan.
Mr Dutton flagged seven sites – two in Queensland and NSW and one each in South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia – for potential new small-scale nuclear reactors under the plan that he promised to take to the next federal election in 2025.
Despite pushback from energy experts about the proposal’s feasibility, Mr Dutton said nuclear power would be “good for jobs” and “the underpinning of 24/7 reliable power into the future”, blaming Labor for warnings about future power shortages.
“The Coalition’s policy of renewables and gas and of nuclear (power) is absolutely essential to keeping the lights on, to having cheaper power and to making sure that we can reduce our emissions,” Mr Dutton said on Monday alongside Liberal Flynn MP Colin Boyce.
He claimed warnings by the energy regulator about brownouts were based on Labor policies. “The PM and Chris Bowen have us on this 100 per cent renewables-only path which is what’s driving up the price of your power bill. It’s what is making our system unreliable,” Mr Dutton said.
“If we want to have cheaper power, if we want greener power, and if we want reliable power, then nuclear is the way in which we’ll provide that 24/7 power into the future … let’s have an honest discussion because Australians are really struggling under this government.”…………………………………………………..
Under the plan, the Coalition proposed the government would fund the construction of the plants in partnership with experienced nuclear energy companies. The government would own the sites in a similar system set-up to the Snowy Hydro and NBN networks. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/peter-dutton-visits-queensland-back-country-in-nuclear-energy-push/news-story/c4c311c83edf71a99738c76c484fc542
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 