WA Liberals reject Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan
New Daily, AAP, May 26, 2024,
The Western Australia Liberal Party has poured cold water on the federal Coalition’s plan for nuclear power in the state, while backing coal to keep the lights on.
Energy spokesman Steve Thomas says federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power won’t work in WA.
“To get approvals and construction happening on a nuclear power plant, whatever the size is, is probably a 15-to-20-year timeframe,” he told reporters on Sunday.
“In the meantime, we have to keep the lights on we have to keep the air conditioners running and we have to do it at a cost that the community can afford.”
WA’s power system was small and a large cost-effective nuclear power plant wouldn’t work, Mr Thomas said.
“The size of the unit would matter significantly because as CSIRO has said, the small ones which will fit into our marketplace are more than two-to-three times as expensive per unit of electricity as the large ones,” he said.
“There might one day be room for a small one when the time is right and the business case steps up and the community accepts it.”
A CSIRO report released last week found building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would take 15 years, cost at least $8.5 billion and produce electricity about twice the cost of renewables.
Any nuclear plant in WA would need significant federal government investment and Mr Thomas said he was happy to look at Mr Dutton’s business case and continue talks.
“This is a long, ongoing discussion and we the state Liberals are not afraid of nuclear energy … but it has to stack up and it has to have support,” he said………………………………… https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2024/05/26/wa-liberals-reject-dutton-nuclear-plan
The Heroism of David McBride
By John Kiriakou https://consortiumnews.com/2024/05/16/john-kiriakou-the-heroism-of-david-mcbride/
By 2014 McBride had compiled a dossier into profound command failings that saw examples of potential war crimes in Afghanistan overlooked and other soldiers wrongly accused. On Tuesday he was sentenced to nearly six years in jail.
Sometimes a whistleblower does everything right. He or she makes a revelation that is clearly in the public interest. The revelation is clearly a violation of the law. And then he or she is even more clearly abused by the government. It would be great if these stories always had happy endings. Unfortunately, they don’t.
In this case, the whistleblower, the hero, Australian David McBride has been sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for telling the truth. He will not be eligible for parole for 27 months.
David McBride is former British Army officer and a lawyer with the Australian Special Forces who blew the whistle on war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, specifically the killing of 39 unarmed Afghan prisoners, farmers, and civilians in 2012.
After failing to raise a response through official channels, McBride shared the information with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which published a series of major reports based on the material.
The ABC broadcasts in 2017 led to a major inquiry that upheld many of the allegations. Despite this, the ABC and its journalists themselves came under threat of prosecution for their work on the story.
The ABC offices in Sydney were raided by the national police, but in the end the government did not prosecute an ABC journalist because it was not in the public interest. McBride himself, however, was prosecuted for dissemination of official information.
Two Tours in Afghanistan
Let’s go back a few years. McBride at the time already was a seasoned attorney. After studying for a second law degree at Oxford University, he joined the British military and eventually moved back to Australia where he became a lawyer in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF). In that role he had two tours in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2013.
While on deployment, McBride became critical of the terms of engagement and other regulations that soldiers were working under, which he felt were endangering military personnel for the sake of political imperatives determined elsewhere.
By 2014 McBride had compiled a dossier into profound command failings that saw examples of potential war crimes in Afghanistan overlooked and other soldiers wrongly accused. His internal complaints were suppressed and ignored.
McBride’s reports also looked at other matters, including the military’s handling of sexual abuse allegations. After his use of internal channels had proven ineffective, McBride gave his report to the police. And eventually, he contacted journalists at ABC.
ABC’s Afghan Files documented several incidents of Australian soldiers killing unarmed civilians, including children, and questioned the prevalent “warrior culture” in the special forces. Subsequent to McBride’s disclosures, the behavior of other Coalition Special Forces in Afghanistan also came under sustained investigation.
In many ways, McBride’s reports went further than the issues identified by ABC. Amid prevalent rumors that Australian troops were responsible for war crimes, questionable deaths in Afghanistan had led to calls for investigations.
Report Vindicated McBride & ABC
In November 2020, the Brereton report (formally called the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force Afghan Inquiry report) was published, utterly vindicating McBride and the ABC. Judge Paul Brereton found evidence of multiple incidents involving Australian personnel that had led to 39 deaths. Among his recommendations were the investigation of these incidents for possible future criminal charges.
There would be almost no criminal charges, however. At least, there would be only one eventual criminal charge against one single soldier in the murder of Afghan civilians. There have been no charges against the officers who covered up the war crimes.
Instead, though, there would be serious charges against McBride for “theft of government property” (the information) and for “sharing with members of the press documents classified as secret.” He faced life in prison.
McBride’s sentence illustrates the challenges that Australian whistleblowers face when reporting evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety.
First, just like in the United States, there are no protections for national security whistleblowers. McBride took his career — indeed, his life — into his hands when he decided to go public with his revelations. But what else could he do?
Second, as in the United States, there is no affirmative defense. McBride, like Edward Snowden, Jeffrey Sterling, Daniel Hale and like me, was forbidden from standing up in court and saying, “Yes, I gave the information to the media because I witnessed a war crime or a crime against humanity. What I did was in the public interest.”
Those words are never permitted to be spoken in a court in the United States or Australia.
Recalling Nuremberg
Third, Australia is in dire need of some legal reforms. The judge in McBride’s case said at sentencing that McBride, “had no duty as an army officer beyond following orders.” That defense was attempted at Nuremberg and it failed. It’s time for the Australian judiciary to get into the 21st century.
There are a couple points of light in this whole fiasco. The Brereton Commission did indeed recommend that 19 members of the Australian Special Forces be prosecuted for war crimes. So far, one has been charged with a crime. He is accused of shooting and killing a civilian in a wheat field in Uruzgan Province in 2012.
Indeed, Andrew Wilkie, a former Australian government intelligence analyst-turned-whistleblower, and now member of Parliament, says that “the Australian government hates whistleblowers” and that it wanted to punish David McBride and to send a signal to other government insiders to remain silent, even in the face of witnessing horrible crimes. I would say exactly the same thing about the United States.
I’m proud to call David McBride a friend. I know exactly what he’s going through right now. But his sacrifice will not be in vain. History will smile on him. Yes, the next several years will be tough. He’ll be a prisoner. He’ll be separated from his family. And when he gets out of prison, well into his 60s, he’ll have to begin rebuilding his life. But he is right and his government is wrong. And future generations will understand and appreciate what he did for them.
John Kiriakou is a former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act — a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
And McBride will be allowed to appeal his conviction. Still any other light at the end of the tunnel is likely an oncoming train, rather than relief for the whistleblower.
But the bottom line is this. There is a war against whistleblowers in Australia just like there is in the United States.
Nuclear option costs ‘six times more’ than renewables
By Marion Rae, May 18 2024, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8632826/nuclear-option-costs-six-times-more-than-renewables/—
The high upfront costs and burden on consumers of adding nuclear to Australia’s energy mix have been confirmed in an independent review.
Building nuclear reactors would cost six times more than wind and solar power firmed up with batteries, according to the independent report released on Saturday by the Clean Energy Council.
“We support a clear-eyed view of the costs and time required to decarbonise Australia and right now, nuclear simply doesn’t stack up,” the industry body’s chief executive Kane Thornton said.
Taxpayers needed to understand the decades of costs if they were forced to foot the bill for building a nuclear industry from scratch, Mr Thornton warned.
The analysis prepared by construction and engineering experts Egis also found nuclear energy had poor economic viability in a grid dominated by renewable energy.
Renewable energy will provide 82 per cent of the national electricity market under current targets for 2030, which is at least a decade before any nuclear could theoretically be operational.
Further, nuclear power stations are not designed to ramp up and down to align with renewable energy generation.
Adding to the cost challenges, Australia has no nuclear energy industry because it is prohibited under commonwealth and state laws, which would all need to be changed.
Mr Thornton said the analysis confirmed that building nuclear power stations instead of renewables would cause power prices to “explode”.
The analysis was based on the CSIRO’s GenCost 2023-24 consultation draft, the Mineral Council of Australia’s Small Modular Reactors study and the industry benchmark Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Report.
These reports did not include waste management and decommissioning of a nuclear plant in cost calculations, which meant the true cost could be even higher, Mr Thornton said.
Australian Greens’ dissenting report on The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill .
1.1The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 (the Bill or ANNPS) is deeply flawed legislation that is only being progressed because of the deeply flawed trilateral agreement that is AUKUS.
1.2The Bill proposes a seriously flawed regulatory model for the dangers of naval nuclear reactors and associated waste.
1.3 The proposed regulator lacks genuine independence, the process for dealing with nuclear waste is recklessly indifferent to community or First Nations interests and the level of secrecy is a threat to both the environment and the public interest.
1.4 Any amendments proposed to improve the many deficiencies of this legislation should not be interpreted as support for the Bill itself or for the AUKUS deal.
1.5 This Bill establishes a new defence naval nuclear regulator that will oversee all aspects of the nuclear production and waste cycle associated with Australian nuclear-powered submarines (and with regard to waste but not the operational activities of UK and US submarines) that operate, are constructed or decommissioned in Australia and Australian territorial waters.
1.6 This regulator will be entirely separate from the existing and long-standing nuclear regulation framework in Australia, which currently sits under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act).
Independence
1.7This Bill fails to meet the fundamental international principles of regulatory independence for safely addressing the inherent risks of nuclear power and nuclear waste.
1.8In this Bill, the proposed Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator reports directly to the Minister of Defence. The Defence Minister is also responsible, through the Australian Defence Force, for the operation of those same nuclear submarines.
1.9 This is widely out of step with international standards of legal and functional independence for nuclear safety and is contrary to current practice on civil nuclear regulation in Australia.
1.10This is also in direct opposition to the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Fundamental Safety Principles that state: An effective legal and governmental framework for safety, including an independent regulatory body, must be established and sustained.[1]
1.11It is also not in line with the current regulation of nuclear waste in Australia. The regulator, called the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) sits in the Ministry of Health whereas the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) (which operates the Lucas Heights reactor) sits in the Ministry of Industry and Science. This is to ensure the regulator is independent of the industry it oversees.
1.12As the majority report notes in some detail, the proposed model under this Bill is distinct from either the UK or US naval nuclear regulators.
1.13 In the UK, while the main naval nuclear regulator does report through the Ministry of Defence, there is a significant ongoing role for the independent civilian Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) in overseeing defence nuclear activities. This is formalised in the General Agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. This agreement clearly delineates the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the ONR in discharging their respective roles and responsibilities for the UK’s defence nuclear operations. There is no equivalent role for ARPANSA in this Bill.
In the US, the regulator is known as the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP). This is not run solely by Defense but rather is jointly managed and self-regulated by the civilian National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that reports to the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Navy. By contrast, under this Bill the regulator will be entirely within the Department of Defence and the Defence Minister will have sole ministerial responsibility.
1.15The importance of regulatory independence was outlined in a letter to the CEO of ARPANSA from the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council in October 2022 that stated:
Independence of the regulator is a critical part of its effectiveness. The regulator should be independent of the operators and departments overseeing any aspect of purchase, manufacture, maintenance, and operation of the program. It is noted that some of the more significant global nuclear and radiation incidents have arisen from inadequate separation of responsibilities from regulatory capture. More than functional separation, it is important that the independent regulator can operate without influence, and with a strong voice. If a regulatory body cannot provide information on safety and incidents at licensed facilities without the approval of another organisation, issues of independence and transparency will arise. Reporting arrangements should therefore enable the regulatory body to be able to provide safety related information to the Government and the public with the maximum amount of transparency.[2]
1.16During a committee hearing, these concerns were put to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), concerning the importance of independence in ‘social licence’:
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We have good examples, though, of independence. ANSTO is an operator. The regulator of ANSTO reports to a different minister, and that is part of how ANSTO gets social licence. That’s a good example, isn’t it, of structural independence?……………………………………………………
ARPANSA also acknowledged that the key to their social licences was independence through reporting to a minister not associated with the industry they are regulating
1.18In further questioning concerning how this independence can be achieved with the Defence Minister having both the regulator and the body it’s regulating reporting to them, ARPANSA stated:
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Do you agree it’s a weakness in this bill to have the operator and the regulator both report to the same minister? Or if you don’t want to adopt my phrase, tell me how you would respond to the fact that the regulator and the operator both report to the same minister, given the fundamental importance of independence?
Dr Hirth: I think it’s important to go back to the IAEA, and I think the comments made by RINA in your questions to them this morning around undue influence. Establishing reporting arrangements in order that there isn’t undue influence of interested parties does present a challenge for the Minister for Defence…………………………….
1.19Furthermore, there were concerns raised about the development of a new regulatory body, with all the concerns of independence with the ANNPS Bill, which may also lack the expertise needed……………..
The ability of the Minister through proposed section 105 to issue directions to the regulator further blurs the independence of the new regulator. This was a concern for the Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions (ASFU),……………………………………………
1.21Another aspect of the lack of independence concerns the staffing and leadership of the new regulator. It is true that neither the Director-General nor Deputy Director-General can be an active member of the ADF (Australian Defence Force) as specified in proposed section 109.
1.22 However, there is nothing stopping someone from immediately stepping out of the ADF and the next day becoming the Director-General or Deputy Director-General, as this exchange with Defence made clear:……………………………………………………..
1.23 Furthermore, there are no such restrictions on the staff of the regulator, which may all be drawn from active ADF personnel.
1.24 This means the supposed independent regulator of Defence can be run by someone who, the day before was in the Defence, staffed by the Defence and report to the Minister of Defence.
Recommendation 1
1.25 It is recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure a genuinely independent regulator and that the regulator reports to the Minister of Health rather than the Minister of Defence.
1.26 Alternatively, that the regulator more closely reflects the arrangements in the United States and jointly reports to both the Minister of Health and the Minister for Defence, with these Ministers jointly holding Ministerial responsibility under the Bill.
Recommendation 2
1.27 It is recommended that for transparency any direction issued under section 105 be tabled in Parliament within three days where the direction may, or will, negatively impact public health or safety.
Recommendation 3
1.28 It is recommended that section 109 be amended to:
prohibit the Director General from being a current or former member of the ADF or Department of Defence, and;
that the Deputy Director General not be a current member of the ADF or Department of Defence or have been a member of the ADF or Department of Defence for at least two years prior to any appointment.
No public or First Nations consultation
1.29This Bill allows the Minister of Defence to establish ‘designated zones’ for the storage, management and disposal of low, medium and high-level nuclear waste in any part of Australia the Minister chooses by regulation.
1.30This Bill establishes an initial two zones, one at HMAS Stirling at Garden Island in Western Australia and another at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. Both zones are close to major metropolitan centres.
1.31Concerning future nuclear waste dumps, the Minister for Defence has indicated that they will only be on Defence land, however, that includes large parcels of land within every major population centre in the country. The Minister also said this can include ‘future’ Defence land.[9]
1.32However, the Bill does not provide even this limitation on where nuclear waste can be located. In fact, the Bill says in bold terms the waste can be on defence land or ‘any other area in Australia’ identified in the regulations. This means, with the flick of the Minister’s pen, any location in Australia can be made into a high-level nuclear waste dump.
1.33This completely excludes any consultation with the local impacted community or with First Nations people whose land and water will be targeted by Defence. With this Bill, neighbours to large defence sites like Holsworthy in Sydney or Greenbank in Brisbane are right to be concerned that they may wake up one morning, with no notice, to find they back onto a high-level nuclear waste dump.
1.34 We have seen from decades of failed attempts to set up nuclear waste sites across the country, most recently at Kimba, that Federal governments have routinely sought to override First Nations people’s claims to the land on this issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) specifies the importance of free, prior and informed consent before any such action is taken. This Bill does not even pretend to engage with these principles.
1.35 As the submission from Friends of the Earth stated:
First Nations communities have repeatedly defeated thuggish, racist governments in relation to radioactive waste facilities but that has come at a huge cost in terms of physical and mental health.[10]
1.36The few protections that the law currently gives to First Nations people over their land are removed by this Bill. The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network raised this during a hearing, stating:
There doesn’t seem to have been any notice taken of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They should have the right to prior informed consent on this issue and have full consultation before any designations are made for nuclear waste.[11]
1.37Multiple submissions also raised the comments by Dr Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, in 2023 on this issue, saying:
It is instructive that all siting initiatives by the Government for a radioactive waste repository have failed, leaving a legacy of division and acrimony in the communities. The loss of lives and songlines resulting from exposure of Indigenous peoples to hazardous pesticides in the Kimberley region, from asbestos exposure in Wittenoom in Western Australia, and from the radioactive contamination following nuclear weapons testing in South Australia, are all open wounds. Alignment of regulations with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical step in the path towards healing open wounds of past environmental injustices.[12]
1.38Concerning the proposed nuclear ‘designated zone’ in Perth, Nuclear Free WA and Stop AUKUS WA noted the importance of the areas around HMAS Stirling, stating in their submission:
Cockburn Sound and Garden Island have significant cultural value for First Nations Peoples … The ecological values of Garden Island, the proximity to Cockburn Sound make radioactive waste disposal here incompatible.[13]
1.39 It is remarkable that on an issue so vital to communities, the potential location of a nuclear waste dump, there is zero public consultation required under this Bill. Compare this to existing laws such as the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, where a site must be voluntarily nominated, evaluated against technical, economic, social and environmental criteria, and offered for public consultation.
1.40 This, together with the express inclusion of the UNDRIP principles, is the minimum standard that should be expected under this Bill for public and First Nations consultation.
Recommendation 4
1.41 It is recommended that the Bill must ensure that there is free, prior and informed consent from First Nations people and the communities impacted before any designated zone is established for low, medium or high-level naval nuclear waste.
Recommendation 5
1.42 It is recommended that the Bill should expressly include reference to, and compliance with, Australia’s international obligations including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recommendation 6
1.43 It is recommended that the Bill should adopt the requirements for public consultation and site identification for designated nuclear zones found in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.
Transparency and collaboration
1.44 The ARPANS Act has key elements to ensure the management of nuclear waste is done in collaboration with other experts and bodies, as well as openly with the public. This Bill fails on both of these fronts……………………………………………………………………………………………
1.47 By creating a legally and functionally separate naval nuclear regulator this Bill ignores decades of experience in both the UK and the US where there is a co-regulatory civil and defence regime. This not only ignores international experience, it also ignores the decades of experience held in Australia’s civilian nuclear regulators and advisers. This is a reckless proposal that will leave Defence to be both the nuclear operator and the nuclear regulator without having ongoing advice from an independent body.
Recommendation 7
1.48 It is recommended that the Bill should require close co-operation and consultation between the proposed naval nuclear regulator and the civilian regulator ARPANSA.
Recommendation 8
1.49 It is recommended that the Bill should be amended to ensure that the Director General receives advice from the relevant nuclear safety advisory groups including the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.
UK and US nuclear waste dumping ground
1.50 As noted above the Bill is drafted to allow the UK and US to dump nuclear waste, including high-level nuclear waste, from their existing and decommissioned nuclear submarines in Australia.
1.51 Despite Minister Marles rejecting this as ‘fear-mongering’ when first raised, this fact was admitted by multiple witnesses, including Defence officials and BAE Systems Australia. It also flows from any even moderately close reading of the Bill.[16]
1.52 It turned out to be significantly more than this with numerous organisations confirming that this Bill indeed does allow for the dumpling of nuclear waste in Australia from UK and US submarines.
1.53 Mr Peter Quinlivian, Senior Legal Counsel, BAE Systems Australia admitted the law would permit the dumping of nuclear waste from UK nuclear submarines in the following exchange:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1.54 Mr Adam Beeson, General Counsel, Australian Conservation Foundation, further corroborated this information said:………………………………………………………………………….
1.55 Mr Kim Moy, Assistant Director-General of the Domestic Nuclear Policy Branch, Department of Defence also admitted that this Bill would allow for the dumping of foreign nuclear waste:……………………………………………………
1.56 Question on Notice 1 from Defence during this hearing also made clear that the current definition is not just limited to low-level nuclear waste, but high-level nuclear waste too.[20]
1.57 This is particularly disturbing given the UK currently has no plan to dispose of the nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines. In the UK there are now six decades of decommissioned rusting nuclear submarines that are filled with high and medium-level nuclear waste for which they have no solution.
1.58 To be clear, under this Bill, there is a real and present danger that either this government or a future government will allow UK nuclear waste to be brought to Australia. This is an extraordinary proposal and is so clearly not in Australia’s interests, let alone the interests of communities and First Nations peoples on whose land this toxic waste will be dumped.
1,59 Mr Dave Sweeny, Nuclear Policy Analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation addressed these concerns ………………………………………………………..
1.60If the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is to splutter on, then it must not be allowed to become a back door entry for the world’s most toxic nuclear waste.
Recommendation 9
1.61 The Bill must be amended to ensure that no UK or US nuclear waste can be stored or disposed of in Australia.
Overrides other laws
1.62 This Bill also seeks to override or disregard other laws and international obligations.
1.63 For example, the Bill allows for the Minister to override State and Territory laws that might limit where the Federal Government proposes nuclear waste will be stored through proposed section 135 which reads:
If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.
1.64 This issue has been noted by local communities and environmental groups including David J Noonan who stated in his submission:
The Bill is undemocratic and disrespectful to the people of SA in a proposed power under Section 135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to over-ride any SA Laws or provisions of our Laws effectively by decree, a fiat of unaccountable federal agents to annul our Laws by naming then in Regulations.[22]
Recommendation 10
1.68 It is recommended that section 135 of the Bill should be removed to retain existing State and Territory protections for the safe treatment of nuclear materials.
Recommendation 11
1.69 It is recommended, to ensure the Bill meets the existing requirements for Australia’s nuclear safety regime to be consistent with international standards, that section 136 be amended to require functions performed to be in accordance with, rather than simply to have regard to, prescribed international agreements.
1.70 Each of the above amendments are intended to strengthen a dangerously undercooked bill. Taken together they would significantly strengthen the proposed regulatory regime to make it more independent and to ensure the public interest, public consultation and First Nations’ rights are respected.
1 .71 However, even if all were adopted, the Bill’s express purpose is to facilitate Australia spending some $368 billion to obtain a handful of nuclear submarines. This entire project comes at an eye-watering cost that strips vital public resources from addressing the climate challenge, the housing crisis and rising economic inequality in our country.
1.72 For all these reasons the Bill should be rejected by the Parliament in its entirety.
Recommendation 12
1.73 It is recommended that the Bill be rejected in full.
Senator David Shoebridge, Substitute member, Greens Senator for New South Wales
Footnotes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ANNPSBills23/Report/Australian_Greens_dissenting_report?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR05CTHduGYDKKcA97g2CvxUE5GZijeBqCITeyjzP0E6YtRmwA_t1EDhwE0_aem_AfsyqQjkM1ez6NUjpa-gSqQ_S_XuhvR6d41rhpWq5VIanWmfHvNRjs3Fqrq_uzaOhVymvSX39Jdbj-LRRbQGamPl
Koonibba looks to the future as a rocket launch site, but one elder is concerned about impact on sacred sites
ABC Eyre Peninsula / By Jodie Hamilton and Amelia Costigan, Sat 11 May 2024
When an 11.5 metre German rocket was launched from the tiny South Australian former mission town of Koonibba last Friday, it lit the candle for self-determination and the future of local Indigenous youth.
But one elder says the project risks damaging sacred women’s sites and the next generation’s connection to country.
Kokotha elder Sue Coleman-Haseldine was camped out in the firing line on the rocket range with a handful of supporters to protest the space venture.
However, the majority of the 125 residents of Koonibba — down from a population of 145 in 2016 — supported the launch.
The community negotiated and developed the venture in partnership with Adelaide company Southern Launch over six years.
The partnership is already delivering educational benefits for town’s small school and nearby Ceduna schools, with plans for a space observatory to attract tourists.
Connection to country
But Ms Coleman-Haseldine has vowed to continue protesting against the site.
She is worried it could help develop weapons technology, the scars of which still plague the lands to the north of Koonibba at Maralinga and Emu Fields, where the Australian and British governments tested nuclear weapons from 1952 to 1963.
Ms Coleman Haseldine was born at the Koonibba Mission in 1951 and said she was no stranger to battles, having addressed the United Nations in 2017 about the impact of those weapons tests at Maralinga.
Walking across a large granite rock outcrop, she points out symbols and talks about the stories of the land.
With family and friends, she has been maintaining and cleaning sacred deep waterholes and clearing dirt and soil washed into shallow surface rock pools, to provide safer drinking holes for emus, kangaroos, birds and reptiles.
She set up camp in the Yumbarra Conservation Park, part of the 41,000 square kilometre rocket launch range, which allows for rocket re-entry and retrievals.
The Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area to the north is also in the rocket launch range
“That rocket launching, I think it could start fires, it could just hit one of these rocks and smash it, starting to break the storylines,” Ms Coleman-Haseldine said.
A Department for Environment and Water spokesperson said the department ensured Southern Launch had consulted appropriately with the Far West Coast Aboriginal Corporation and the Yumbarra Conservation Park Co-management Board…………………………..
Ms Coleman-Haseldine said she had been going to the area from childhood and had a custodial role to protect the land, animals and stories.
“This area is all part of the Seven Sisters dreaming,” she said.
“Country gives us bush med, food, teaches the kids out here how to survive.
“And it teaches them respect for the country and each other, and the animals………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-11/koonibba-rocket-launch-aboriginal-community-protest-kokotha-sa/103808598
How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor? We ask France
Sophie Vorrath, May 8, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-we-ask-france/
A short answer to this question might be, it depends who you ask. Ask Opposition leader Peter Dutton, for instance, and he will tell you a federal Coalition government under his leadership could have a nuclear power plant up and running in Australia within a decade.
Ask the highly experienced French state-owned nuclear power giant EDF, which manages 56 reactors in the world’s most nuclear dependent country, and you would get rather a different answer.
Bloomberg reports that EDF this week got regulatory approval to start up its newest nuclear reactor, the 1.6GW Flamanville plant in France’s north west – a milestone that is 12 years behind schedule and more than four times over budget, thanks to a range of construction problems including concrete weakness and faulty pipe welds.
The green light allows EDF to load the fuel in the reactor, proceed with trials, then begin operations, the Autorite de Surete Nucleaire said in a statement on Tuesday. Further approvals will be needed upon reaching key milestones during the trial phase, the regulator said.
According to other reports, EDF said last month it hoped to connect the Flamanville pressurised reactor to the national grid by the European summer and reach full power by the end of the year.
But it will not be smooth sailing from there. A faulty vessel cover still needs replacing at the plant, with reports suggesting this has been pushed out to 2026, when the plant would be shut down for up to a year.
Meanwhile, EDF in March raised its cost estimate for the construction of six new nuclear reactors to €67.4 billion ($A102.5 billion), Reuters has reported, up from the company’s first estimated their cost of €51.7 billion.
So, how long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?
Kobad Bhavnagri, Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s energy expert and global head of strategy says the long delay and cost blowout at Flamanville 3 is not an isolated incident.
“Very similar delays and multifold cost blowouts have occurred with recent reactor builds in the UK, Finland and USA,” Bhavnagri writes on LinkedIn.
“Countries with well established nuclear industries.
“The lesson here? Don’t believe anyone who says they know how much it will cost and how long it will take to build a new nuclear plant (unless they are in China).”
Federal election 2025: Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans worry voters in Nationals-held seat of Gippsland.
‘A big risk’: Voters wary of nuclear replacing coal-fired power Tom McIlroy Political correspondent, AFR 7 May 24
Voters in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley have raised the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters when asked about Peter Dutton’s plan to build large-scale reactors near them, suggesting strong reservations about the energy plan.
As the Coalition finalises a policy for coal-fired power station sites to host nuclear energy – and for small modular reactor technology to be deployed in other places – focus group research in the federal electorate of Gippsland showed voters had safety concerns about living near a reactor.
Mr Dutton wants nuclear to provide baseload power to firm renewable energy and ensure Australia achieves net-zero emissions by 2050.
Communities near coal plants would be called on to host nuclear facilities, with at least six sites expected to be named before the next election.
Mr Dutton says nuclear must stack up on four key criteria: safety, waste disposal, location and cost.
But a focus group of Coalition-leaning voters questioned by polling firm Redbridge last week revealed doubts in the seat held by Nationals MP Darren Chester.
One male participant said he was opposed to nuclear replacing coal-fired power at sites like Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn.
“I know there’s a lot of safeguards with nuclear but it is still a very big risk if something does happen,” he said.
“It uses up a lot of resources and at the end of the day, once it has used up all its radioactiveness, we have to go bury it in the desert somewhere because we can’t do anything with it.”
A woman told the group she did not know much about the plan but had strong concerns.
“The thought of it makes me want to move. I’ve got kids. I don’t want them to be exposed to something that could affect them.”
Another woman said future generations would suffer if Australia lifted the ban on nuclear power.
“We’ve seen in the past with Chernobyl. Obviously, the situation has got better and people have learnt from things but mistakes happen and it’s a risk that you have to weigh up when considering putting something into an area with population.”
Another male participant cited the 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima power plant. He said Australia could face the risk of a similar disaster if nuclear was developed here. Another suggested that carp in local waters would “be huge” in the event of a nuclear spill………………………………………………………..
Fellow director Tony Barry said there was “intense” opposition in Gippsland.
“There is some limited opportunity for the Coalition to leverage a perception that a nuclear reactor in the region might produce local economic benefits.
“However, the problem for the Coalition is that to overcome these wide and deep concerns and to successfully leverage the perceived benefits they will need to spend millions of campaign dollars on messaging.”…………………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-big-risk-voters-wary-of-nuclear-replacing-coal-fired-power-20240506-p5fp9d
Murrumbidgee Council launches survey on establishing nuclear power generator near Coleambally, Darlington Point or Jerilderie
from Greg Phillips -I was wondering if this was a belated April Fool’s joke. Especially since it is an “online survey” with no checks on who votes (as usual I expect it to be overrun by nuclear fanatics pretending to be locals). I think the rate payers in that area will have to pay much more attention to who they let get into the council next time.
30 April 2024 | Oliver Jacques, https://regionriverina.com.au/council-launches-survey-on-establishing-nuclear-power-generator-near-coleambally-darlington-point-or-jerilderie/59543/
Murrumbidgee Council has asked residents of Coleambally, Darlington Point, and Jerilderie to voice their opinions on the idea of establishing a nuclear power generator in their area.
“In an effort to explore diverse energy solutions, the community is invited to participate in an online survey aimed at understanding their appetite for nuclear power,” the council said in a statement.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity by using controlled nuclear chain reactions to heat water and produce steam to power turbines.
Advocates say the plants can generate clean energy without the by-products emitted by fossil fuels, while critics argue nuclear power is expensive, unreliable, possibly unsafe and it produces hazardous waste.
Murrumbidgee Council General Manager John Scarce said the council sought to understand public sentiment regarding the possible integration of nuclear power into the local energy landscape.
Mr Scarce said the concept would be contingent upon dismantling existing renewable energy infrastructure, including solar and wind farms, at the end of their operational life.
“The land would then be reclaimed for agricultural purposes, aligning with sustainability and resource optimisation goals,” he said.
The survey is designed as a precursor to gathering more information on the idea, with a view to undertaking a more formal poll in the future.
Nuclear power is banned in Australia and under current laws, nuclear power stations can’t be built in any state or territory.
At a recent event in Wagga, Essential Energy CEO John Cleland said nuclear energy would remain an important part of the global energy network, but it was an unlikely option for Australia in the near future.
“The lived experience and reality of nuclear is that all new nuclear generation built globally in the last 40 or 50 years has ended up being very expensive,” he said.
“In Australia, we have this wonderful endowment of wind and solar and existing gas reserves and systems that will provide a very robust peaking generation source going forward.
“The economic case for nuclear is challenging but we do need to continue to monitor the evolution of the technology around small-scale modular nuclear reactors because they might in time play a role.”
The Murrumbidgee Council survey can be accessed online at survey monkey and will remain open until 5 pm on 22 May 2024.
“History is Calling: Australia and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”
– Melissa Parke, ICAN International Executive Director, 30 Apr 24 https://icanw.org.au/history-is-calling-report/
“History is Calling: Australia and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” sets out in detail the case for Australia to join the global majority of nations in supporting the nuclear weapon ban treaty. It outlines Australia’s progress on implementation, the TPNW’s complementarity with other agreements, nuclear safeguards and disarmament architecture, enforcement, universalisation, victim assistance and environmental remediation, Australia and its alliances, and nuclear deterrence theory.
By early 2024, almost half the world’s nations have already joined the TPNW. More will join. And they are getting to serious, practical work implementing the treaty.
Australia is currently the only nuclear-allied state where the governing party has repeatedly committed to sign and ratify the ban treaty. Under governments both Coalition and Labor, Australia has joined every other treaty banning an inhumane, indiscriminate weapon, but not yet this one banning the worst weapons of mass destruction.
Australia must step up and do its part to wind back the looming nuclear danger. Let’s get on the right side of history, not add to the risk of ending it. It’s time Australia joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
– Melissa Parke, ICAN International Executive Director
Dutton’s plan to save Australia with nuclear comes undone when you look between the brushstrokes
Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/24/duttons-plan-to-save-australia-with-nuclear-comes-undone-when-you-look-between-the-brushstrokes
The dystopian picture of renewables painted by the opposition leader is full of inconsistencies, partial truths and misinformation
The Coalition leader, Peter Dutton, has been trying to paint a picture of what life in Australia will be like if it tries to power itself mostly with renewable energy and without his technology of choice: nuclear.
Towering turbines offshore will hurt whales, dolphins and the fishing industry, factories will be forced to stop working because there’s not enough electricity and the landscape will be scoured by enough new transmission cables to stretch around the entire Australian coastline.
At the same time – so his story goes – only his option to go nuclear will save Australia from falling behind the rest of the world.
But Dutton’s dystopian image, with more brushstrokes added in an interview on the ABC’s flagship Insiders program, is a picture of inconsistencies, partial truths and misinformation.
Let’s have a look between the brushstrokes.
Is it a credible plan?
The Coalition has said it wants to put nuclear reactors at the sites of coal-fired power plants, but hasn’t said where, how big the reactors will be, when it wants them built or given an estimate on cost.
The Coalition has previously said it would give more details on its plan in time for its response to the Albanese government’s budget next month, but Dutton is now saying it will come “in due course”.
Despite this, Dutton claimed in his interview with the ABC’s David Speers that: “I believe that we’re the only party with a credible pathway to net zero by 2050.”
OK then.
28,000 kilometres?
Dutton claimed the government’s plans relied on “28,000km of poles and wires being erected” to connect renewables to the grid – a distance he said was “equal to the whole coastline of Australia”.
That’s a catchy soundbite, but where does this number come from?
According to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s most recent plan for the development of Australia’s east-coast electricity market, the most likely scenarios to decarbonise the electricity grid would require about 10,000km of additional transmission lines to be built between now and 2050.
What about the extra 18,000km? That figure comes in an estimate of what would be needed if Australia chose to become a major exporter of clean hydrogen as well as decarbonising the grid.
So about two-thirds of Dutton’s 28,000km is not so much related to decarbonising the electricity grid, but rather to an export industry that may or may not happen, to an as-yet-unknown extent.
Turning off power?
Dutton claimed: “At the moment, we’re telling businesses who have huge order books to turn down their activity in an afternoon shift because the lights go out on that grid. Now, no other developed country is saying that.”
Dutton is suggesting that businesses are being routinely forced to reduce their demand for power. This is simply not true.
Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at UNSW, says it’s very rare for businesses to be told by the market operator they are going to have their power interrupted.
Such “load shedding” has happened only five times in the last 15 years, he said, typically occurs in extreme conditions such as storms or coal plants going offline, and only a subset of consumers are affected.
There are two main formal voluntary schemes in place across the National Electricity Market (everywhere except NT and WA) where major electricity consumers can offer to reduce their demand for electricity at certain times, but businesses are compensated for being part of those schemes. Nobody is telling any of these businesses that they have to do anything.
Neither is it true that no other country is engaging in some sort of process where demand for electricity can be managed.
Is Australia really the only developed country engaged in what’s known as demand response? No.
The International Energy Agency lists the UK, US, France, Japan and South Korea as having large markets already in place to help their electricity systems balance the supply of electricity with demand.
McConnell said: “Demand response is becoming a common and important part of modern electricity systems. This includes countries like France and the US, which have both nuclear and demand response programs.”
G20 and nuclear
Dutton said Australia was the only G20 nation “not signed up to nuclear or currently using it”.
According to information from the World Nuclear Association, Australia is one of five G20 nations with no operating nuclear power plants, alongside Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Turkey.
But aside from Italy, Germany and Australia, the rest do have some plans to develop nuclear power in the future. Dutton’s phrase “currently using it” allows him to capture countries like Italy that import electricity from nuclear nations.
But what’s also important to note is that among the G20 countries (actually 19 countries) nuclear is mostly playing a marginal role. Nuclear provides more than 5% of its electricity in only seven of those 19 countries.
Social licence?
Projects would need a “social licence” to go ahead, Dutton said, but there was opposition in western New South Wales where “productive” land was being sold for renewables projects.
This is a variation of a previous Dutton speech, where he lamented a supposed “carpeting of Australia’s prime agricultural land with solar and windfarms”.
The renewable energy industry’s Clean Energy Council has countered claims like this, saying even if all the country’s coal plants were replaced with solar farms, the amount of space needed would be about 0.027% of agricultural land.
The Coalition leader has been to the Hunter coast more than once where offshore windfarms are being planned, telling reporters they were a “travesty” and that they would put whales, dolphins and the fishing and tourism industries “at risk”. He told Speers the turbines would rise “260 metres out of the water”.
Dutton told the ABC that Australia should be mindful of the environmental consequences of windfarms – which is, of course, true – but his past statements have sounded more like cheerleading for voices opposed to the plans than an attempt to understand the scale and legitimacy of the concerns, some of which are being stoked by misinformation.
Dutton can’t know what impact offshore windfarms will have on fishing or tourism, but is willing in any case to use labels like “travesty”.
‘A little awkward’: Coalition faces internal tension over nuclear plans
Sky News host Chris Kenny says the Coalition is in an “awkward” situation with their behind the scenes negotiations around nuclear energy.
It is reported that a rift has formed with the Coalition regarding Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plans.
“Inside the Coalition, there is argument about where the nuclear power stations might be sited in this country,” Mr Kenny said.
“Apparently some MPs saying they don’t want them in their backyard.
“Sounds like there is tension.”
Washington Syndrome: Australia’s sovereignty sell-out hidden in plain sight
“The process is almost complete. The Australian Defence Force’s integration into the US military to serve the needs of Washington has been announced, albeit without announcement, this week.”
Arguably the only thing left to do is to adopt American spelling and replace the letter ‘c’ with the letter ‘s’ in ‘Department of Defence’.
by Rex Patrick | Apr 21, 2024 https://michaelwest.com.au/washington-syndrome-marles-defence-plan-sovereignty-sell-out/
Defence Minister Richard Marles rolled out some glossy new brochures this week spelling out the composition of the Australian Defence Force in the decades ahead. As media quibbled about this equipment purchase or that one, former Senator and submariner Rex Patrick explains the sovereignty sell-out hidden in plain sight.
Washington Syndrome
It’s confirmed. All the evidence points to the Defence Minister suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (or more accurately Washington Syndrome), except that he hasn’t just formed a bond with his Defence Department, where he won’t challenge them. He’s swallowed the whole kit and caboodle; adopting Defence lingo and lines as his own.
Marles has expressed Defence’s wishes beautifully, without revealing explicitly what that wish is. But it’s sitting there in plain sight.
National Defence Strategy
The use of smokescreens is a longstanding battlefield tactic, and it’s often employed by bureaucrats too. To get a clear and truthful picture from the National Defence Strategy released this week, you have to peer through a dense cloud of verbiage to get a clear sense of what’s really going on.
Early in the document the strategic framework is laid out.
Our Alliance with the US remains fundamental to Australia’s national security. We will continue to deepen and expand our defence engagement with the US, including by pursuing greater scientific, technological and industrial cooperation, as well as enhancing our own cooperation under force posture initiatives.
So, we’re joined at the hip to the United States, and we intend to stay that way.
The document spells out why Defence thinks we need to do that. The optimism at the end of the Cold War has been replaced by uncertainty and tension of entrenched and strategic competition between the US and China.
It is accompanied by an unprecedented conventional and non-conventional build-up in our region, taking place without strategic reassurance or transparency.
…
This build up is also increasing the risk of military escalation or miscalculation that could lead to a major conflict in the region.
Indeed, it zooms in with on the specifics. The risk of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait is increasing, as well as other flashpoints, including disputes in the South and East China Seas and on the border with India.
The Government will continue to strengthen its defence engagement with the US to:
- ensure joint exercises and capability rotations with the US are focused on enhancing collective deterrence and force posture cooperation.
- Acquire the technology and capability required to enhance deterrence, including through increasing collaboration on defence innovation, science and technology.
- Leverage Australia’s strong partnership with Japan in its trilateral context, including opportunities for Japan to participate in Australia-US force posture cooperation activities, to enable interoperability and contribute to deterrence; and
- Progress enabling reforms to export controls, procurement policy and information sharing to deliver a more integrated industrial base.
- Meanwhile, the US is increasing its military footprint in Australia in terms of facilities in the north (mission briefing/intelligence centre and aircraft parking aprons) at RAAF Darwin, fuel storage at Darwin Port, infrastructure at RAAF Tindal near Katherine and logistics storage in both Victoria and Queensland).
- This is on top of the long established top secret signals intelligence base, the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, and Australian support for US naval communications through the very low-frequency receiving and transmission facility at North West Cap. As far as American strategists are concerned, Australia has long been “a suitable piece of real estate”.
But now there’s a new dimension to the alliance with Australian taxpayers are sharing the alliance love by pouring billions into the US submarine industrial base.
US Seventh and a Half Fleet
Of course, it’s hard to fight a conflict in Taiwan Straights with an army. That’s reflected in the distribution of future expenditure outline in the Integrated Investment Program, released alongside the National Defence Strategy.
The Navy will receive almost 40% of all Defence expenditure. The Royal Australian Navy will become the seventh and a half fleet of the US Navy, supported by what are being referred to as the expeditionary air operations by the Royal Australian Air Force.
Again, hidden in plain sight.
Taiwan
Taiwan is a democracy of 22 million people. I might like to think we would come to their aid in the event their democracy was threatened.
But sending our sons and daughters to engage in a northern hemisphere conflict is a matter which should be decided upon by our Parliament at some future time.
We should seek to have a balanced and flexible Defence Force optimised first for Defence of Australia and second for near regional security (a deployment to Taiwan, if approved by our elected members, should draw from an order-of-battle optimised for Defence of Australia).
Sovereignty Stolen
But that’s not what’s happening.
It’s all too tempting to suggest that the sovereignty sell-out started at with AUKUS, announced by Scott Morrison on 16 September 2021 and adopted by Anthony Albanese at the Kabuki show in San Diego on 15 March 2023. But it didn’t.For those astute enough to have picked up and read a copy of Professor Clinton Fernandes’ book “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena”, they’ll know AUKUS is just natural and obvious. So too is the even greater embedding of the ADF into the US military to serve the needs of Washington that has been announced this week, albeit without announcement.
“The process is almost complete. The Australian Defence Force’s integration into the US military to serve the needs of Washington has been announced, albeit without announcement, this week.”
Arguably the only thing left to do is to adopt American spelling and replace the letter ‘c’ with the letter ‘s’ in ‘Department of Defence’.
History repeats
We have been down this road before.
n the 1920s and 1930s conservative Australian Governments saw Australian security as part of that of the British Empire as a whole. As a consequence, they implemented defence programs that were designed to produce forces, especially the Royal Australian Navy, that were hopelessly unbalanced and only made sense as a subset of British forces. Imperial Defence was prioritised ahead of national defence in a ‘strategy’, if you can call it that, that compromised Australia’s then very new national sovereignty and almost came to disaster in 1942.
Bureaucratic and political self-interest
Australia’s new “National Defence Strategy” really is nothing of the sort. It’s a sub-set of strategic planning made in Washington, not an Australian national perspective.
AUKUS has devoured whatever vestiges of independent strategic thought that might have been lingering in our Defence Department.
But don’t imagine that there’s any dissent about this in Defence Headquarters.
Those in Defence bureaucracy guiding our politicians are be happy, uproariously happy, because they’ll personally benefit from the arrangement.
AUKUS and this latest steerage will serve as a tremendous career and institutional opportunity for them. They’ve cemented their position in an alliance arrangement that involves important meetings and conferences, important decisions, trips overseas, and, for some, exchange postings. For them, they’ve got ringside seats and the opportunity to be occasional players in the big league.
Which brings me back to Defence Minister Marles, who can’t really be blamed for the sell-out.
Marles isn’t, and never was, the sort of political figure that could develop much of an understanding of what is going on around him, let alone be the one to lead with strategic vision and agenda forward. He’s too busy learning the lingo, enjoying the photo opportunities, and impressing upon his ‘sub-ordinates’ in Defence Headquarters that he’s not to be referred to as the Defence Minister, but rather as the Deputy Prime Minister. Surely he deserves that courtesy!
Why South Australia will be a nuclear power battleground at the 2025 federal election
Adelaide Now, 15 Apr 24
Crunch time for affordable, reliable electricity is coming fast and SA will be key to deciding nuclear power’s fate, writes Paul Starick.
Crunch time is rapidly approaching in the race to deliver affordable, reliable electricity while transitioning Australia to a net-zero economy.
The next federal election, expected early next year, will be yet another battle in the climate war that has deadlocked politicians and delivered little for voters – other than dramatically higher power prices.
The fundamental choice at this election will be between pumping billions of dollars into building wind and solar farms – or nuclear power plants.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argues renewable energy will bring cheaper power prices and boost sovereign capability by reviving manufacturing.
A Net Zero Australia report released last July finds $1.5 trillion will have to be spent by the end of this decade, particularly on rolling out transmission networks to support new wind and solar, if Australia is going to meet its emissions reductions targets by 2050.
The group, which included experts form Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton universities, said: “Nuclear power should not be in our plans, because it’s too expensive and slow”.
His rival, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, argues the Coalition could deliver cheaper power prices by installing the first small-modular nuclear power reactors into the grid by the mid-2030s, at a cost of $3.5bn to $5bn each.
They would be built by Rolls-Royce, also the supplier of nuclear reactors for AUKUS submarines to be built in Adelaide as part of $368bn project.
The reported cost and timeline, at the very least, raises strong questions over Labor’s blanket rejection of nuclear as uneconomic, given the amount that is being ploughed into renewables.
I find it amazing that the Advertiser just accepts Peter Dutton’s claims on the timing and costs of the as yet non-existent small nuclear reactors
South Australia will be at the epicentre of this epic battle over electricity generation and prices.
The state has world-leading penetration of renewable energy and the world’s largest uranium resource at Olympic Dam.
The Coalition wants a nuclear power plant at Port Augusta.
The consequences are huge, as straight-talking Alinta Energy chief Jeff Dimery said on Wednesday, when he argued Australians must face the “hard truth” of having to pay more for electricity to reach net zero by 2050”.
State and federal Labor governments want to rapidly accelerate the renewable push.
Premier Peter Malinauskas in late February said the 100 per cent renewables net electricity generation target would be brought forward three years from 2030 to 2027.
The catalyst, he vowed, would be a clean energy boom underpinned by the state-owned, $593m hydrogen power plant operating in Whyalla from 2026.
This project, a core 2022 election promise, almost certainly will attract federal funding in the May federal budget, as part of massive government investment in the energy transition promised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a landmark speech on Thursday.
Mr Albanese is citing green iron production at Whyalla steelworks, fuelled by green hydrogen from the state-operated plant, as a key example of his Future Made in Australia plan.
But the federal Coalition and state Liberals sense an opportunity to wedge Mr Malinauskas on nuclear energy.
He seems a supporter, frustrated only by a disciplined commitment to implement his hydrogen power plant election promise, plus remain in lock-step with Labor colleagues by insisting it is uneconomic……………….
Whatever the machinations, voters will soon, appropriately, decide nuclear power’s future.
No decisions on site for nuclear waste dump as spin doctor sought
By Karen Barlow – Canberra Times, April 15 2024 – https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8591149/the-nuclear-waste-dump-quest-is-waiting-for-its-spin-doctor/
The Albanese government has confirmed it is searching for, and is yet to settle on, sites for both low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste as it seeks a highly skilled PR team to manage likely “high” outrage over possible sites.
In a series of answers to questions from potential suppliers on the federal tender site, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources also advised that there may be a need to reference the future AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program through the contract, but only in educational materials.
It comes after a major government approach to market was uncovered by The Canberra Times, revealing that a nuclear-specific crisis management team is being sought – six months after the government abandoned plans for a low-level waste dump near Kimba in remote South Australia – to bid for a two-year contract to help manage public discussion of nuclear waste in Australia.
The move has been criticised by the Greens and the Coalition as spin and “steamrolling regional communities,” but the new approach to market appears to address other criticism that nuclear waste dumps are announced and later argued as needed.
Asked by an unnamed potential supplier if the department has a list of sites or communities looking to be engaged over the two-year contract period, the answer is “no.”
“This information is unknown,” the answer reads. “The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency has started work on alternative proposals for the storage and disposal of the commonwealth’s civilian low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste.”
So that is not just the low-level option that was being sought, but abandoned, at Napandee at the top of the Eyre Peninsula.
The answers to the questions of potential suppliers, which have to bid for the contract, offer greater insight to the process for delivering a secure storage facility, but are limited to current timelines.
“No site has been been shortlisted or selected and no benefits package has been determined, this will be a matter for government,” the department stated.
The department also advises that there are not currently “specific deliverables” that the department is looking to complete. It is also advised there may be some stakeholder engagement activities that involve a role in decision making.
The original approach to market, posted March 26, asked for assistance with “nuclear-specific” public relations and professional communications services during the early stages of a new radioactive waste management approach being identified. This is described as the first three to five years of a 100-year project.
It would involve engagement with “impacted communities”, “stringent preparation for technical and challenging questions” from the public, and support for the public’s “comprehensive understanding of the nation’s radioactive waste inventory, origins and need for safe management.”
“This is a highly specialised high-outrage area and there are times of uplift where urgent assistance is required and additional industry-relevant specialist support is needed, including upskilling staff to undertake these activities in a high outrage environment,” the document reads.
It comes as Australia, as well as AUKUS partners the United States and the United Kingdom, continues to be without a long-term solution for radioactive waste disposal.
Asked by a potential supplier if there is consideration for SSN-AUKUS (nuclear powered submarines under the AUKUS trilateral pact) or visiting nuclear-powered naval capabilities, the department said maybe, but not much.
“While information about Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program may form a small part of ARWA educational materials, the supplier will not be required to undertake engagement work focused on AUKUS or nuclear-powered submarines,” it responded.
There appears to be no willingness to waive the requirement for baseline security clearance, even for a world-leading technical subject matter expert.
Asked if a waiver was possible for the duties which include assisting in preparing “factually correct nuclear technology and radioactive waste engagement materials”, the department responded, “Any specified personnel must be able to obtain and hold a Baseline Security Clearance.”
Asked further if people with equivalent security clearances from other five eyes nations (the US, UK, New Zealand and Canada) are able to work on the project, the response was the same: “Any specified personnel must be able to obtain and hold a Baseline Security Clearance.”
Nuclear lobby manipulates ABC’s 7.30 Report
By Noel Wauchope | 11 April 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/nuclear-lobby-manipulates-abcs-730,18498—
An ABC report on nuclear energy presented a one-sided viewpoint, dominated by the pro-nuclear lobby, writes Noel Wauchope.
ON 4 APRIL, on ABC’s 7.30, regional affairs reporter Jane Norman presented a sort of debate on nuclear power for Australia. An accompanying article was also published on 2 April as a debate about ‘a generational divide’.
The show was quite gripping, with excellent visual snippets of Australia’s history of nuclear issues and promotional visualisation of the industry’s proposed new small modular reactors (SMRs).
The essence of this debate seemed to be that old people are inclined to oppose nuclear power, but young people see it as a new and valuable way to reduce carbon emissions and counter global heating.
In discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power, Norman, herself relatively young, mentioned some recent opinion polls in which public opinion was split, with younger Australians being more supportive of nuclear.
In opposition to nuclear, elderly Indigenous Aunty Sue Haseldine gave an intensely personal history, passionately setting out her concern for the environment and for the children of the future. We learned, as the programme went on, that older generations had been influenced by the history of past atomic tests in Australia, and by past accidents overseas, and had developed a distrust of nuclear power.
And, presently, the Liberal Coalition Opposition, led by Peter Dutton, is putting nuclear ‘at the centre of its energy policy’.
Moving on to those supporting nuclear power, Jane Norman interviewed the enthusiastic Helen Cook.
Cook is deeply involved in the pro-nuclear lobby as principal of GNE Advisory, whose website states:
‘Helen is recognised as a nuclear law expert by the International Atomic Energy Agency [and] the former Chair of the World Nuclear Association’s Law Working Group…’
She is definitely a nuclear promoter and a favoured speaker for the industry, along with luminaries such as Michael Shellenberger, Zion Lights and Dr Adi Paterson. She said that she had had trouble overseas trying to explain Australia’s ban against nuclear power, but now back in Australia, did not find negative attitudes towards it.
We then heard very limited support from the Grattan Institute‘s Tony Wood. He was clear that at present the economics for nuclear power are “terrible”, but said that SMRs could be an option for the future. (BHP, a big uranium miner, is a big backer of the Grattan Institute.)
The programme reinforced the message for small nuclear power, showing attractive graphics of SMRs prominently marked with text: ‘Reliable, cost-effective, clean and safe.’
Then came Mark Ho, nuclear engineer and president of the Australian Nuclear Association, on the need to overturn the legislation banning nuclear. Construction of SMRs would take from three to five years.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that a country could go from considering nuclear energy to having nuclear energy in its power grid in ten to 15 years
Associate Professor Edward Obbard, the head of nuclear engineering at UNSW, was the final pro-nuclear expert. He explained that there is, among young people, very little opposition to AUKUS nuclear submarines. Younger generations regard climate change as the greatest threat, so nuclear could be one of the solutions. Obbard sees it as a moral case — an environmentally low-impact way to decarbonise.
Helen Cook has interesting insights. She says that Australia has expertise in nuclear power — a questionable claim when it is based on just the staff of one small research reactor. She argues that the USA, Japan and Ukraine have experienced severe nuclear accidents, yet have pledged to treble their nuclear energy production by 2050. One does wonder why.
This is problematic, as all three countries are burdened with nuclear waste and the industry now promises the reactors that might “eat the waste” (itself a dodgy claim). The UK government now admits that the nuclear weapons industry is the real reason for civil nuclear reactors. Her case for nuclear power for Australia seems to boil down to if others are doing this, so should we.
So we have on one side a little old (very articulate and eloquent) Indigenous lady, who probably does not have a university degree, let alone a big job in the industry, versus four “highly qualified” prestigious members of the pro-nuclear lobby.
I wrote to 7.30 suggesting a bit of genuine balance in this debate. I suggested for speakers the very well-informed Jim Green, of the international Nuclear Consulting Group and Friends of the Earth Australia, Dr Helen Caldicott, or Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation. But I now reflect that these might be a bit much for the ABC.
They might consider interviewing former nuclear supporters such as Ziggy Switkowski, Alan Finkel, or some more neutral experts like economist Professor John Quiggin or Jeremy Cooper.
Anyway, it’s the same old problem of false balance that has plagued the ABC in the past.
And there’s another dimension, now. The programme depicted Aunty Sue Haseldine as an admirable person, with genuine concern and emotion. But she hasn’t got the facts, the new young expert technical facts that appeal to today’s young people.
But 7.30 didn’t really present the facts. The gee-whiz SMRs are not new and young. They were tried out in the 1940s to 1960s but turned out to be uneconomic, time-consuming, gave poor performance and produced toxic wastes. The programme glossed over important issues such as waste problems, genuine study of the probable delays before SMRs could be operational, safety issues, risks of terrorism and weapons proliferation.
The ABC has a pretty noble history of tackling tough issues. And so does Sarah Ferguson, presenter of 7.30. I think they let us down this time and hope they will rectify this.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
23 July – Australian Premiere: ‘Our Planet, The People, My Blood’ documentary
Thu, 23 Jul, 10am – 12pm ACST
The Mercury
13 Morphett St, Adelaide SA 5000
Link to register and more information here. tickets free but you must register
30 July – WEBINAR (Free) – Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Climate Change? https://my.acaw.org.au/event/acaw-is-nuclear-power-the-solution-to-climate-change
18:30 – 19:45 ACST
19:00 – 20:15 AEST
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 