Replacing Australia’s retiring coal power stations with small nuclear reactors could cost $387bn, analysis suggests
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition
Daniel Hurst https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/18/replacing-australias-retiring-coal-power-stations-with-small-nuclear-reactors-could-cost-387bn-analysis-suggests
The federal government says it would cost as much as $387bn to replace Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the form of nuclear power proposed by the Coalition.
The figure, produced by the energy department, is the projected cost of replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has previously suggested that Australia “could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.
However, he has not been explicit about how much of the coal-fired electricity output would be replaced with nuclear-sourced energy – an uncertainty that makes projecting the cost difficult.
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition.
The government said the new analysis showed a minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of Australia’s retiring coal fleet.
“According to the 2022-23 GenCost report modelling under the current policies scenario, this could cost $387bn,” a government summary said.
“This is due to the estimated capital cost of $18,167/kW for [small modular reactors] in 2030, compared to large scale solar at just $1,058/kW, and onshore wind at $1,989/kW.”
The government said this would represent “a whopping $25,000 cost impost on each Australian taxpayer”.
The minister for climate change and energy, Chris Bowen, said the opposition wanted to promote the benefits of “non-commercial” small modular reactor technology “without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it”.
“Peter Dutton and the opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387bn cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason,” Bowen said.
“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-bullion-dollar nuclear-flavoured energy policy.”
Dutton identified Liddell as a possible site for a small modular reactor when he gave a pro-nuclear speech in July.
At the time, Dutton said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables but as a companion” and he wanted “an Australia where we can decarbonise and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable and lower emission electricity”.
He called on the government to consider removing legislative prohibitions on new nuclear technologies – a step the former Coalition government didn’t attempt during its nine years in power – “so we do not position Australia as a nuclear energy pariah”.
Dutton further accused Bowen of burrowing “so deeply down the renewable rabbit hole that he refuses to consider these new nuclear technologies”.
“The new nuclear technology train is pulling out of the station. It’s a train Australia needs to jump aboard.”
The estimates released by the government on Monday are partly based on the costs for small modular reactors outlined in the CSIRO’s GenCost report.
That report notes that global commercial deployment of small modular reactors is “limited to a small number of projects and the Australian industry does not expect any deployment here before 2030”.
The report notes some uncertainty around the projections.
“Nuclear SMR current costs are not reported since there is no prospect of a plant being deployed in Australia before 2030,” said the CSIRO report, released in July.
“However, some improved data on nuclear SMR may be available in future reports and projected capital costs for SMR have been included from 2030 onward.”
The federal government has set a goal of 82% of electricity coming from renewable energy by 2030, up from about 35% today.
To achieve this, the federal government has committed $20bn in low-cost finance for “rewiring the nation” – updating transmission lines – but is facing pushbacks from rural communities.
Protesters call on Labor to protest Fukushima nuclear waste dumping
Jim McIlroy, Gadi/Sydney, September 18, 2023 https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/protesters-call-labor-protest-fukushima-nuclear-waste-dumping
Protesters took a stand against the dumping of Fukushima’s nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean on September 16. The action was organised by the Sydney Candlelight Action (SCA), based in the Korean community, and was part of a global day of action.
Speakers from the Korean community and other groups condemned the Japanese government and called for international pressure to stop further dangerous radioactive contamination.
Vivian Pak from the Candleight Alliance called on the Prime Minister and environment minister to oppose Japan’s decision.
She also condemned the South Korean government for “not only assisting Japan over the dumping of the nuclear contaminated water but also actively encouraging the ultra right-wing government of Japan to increase its military presence in the region”.
Peter Boyle from Socialist Alliance condemned Labor for endorsing the dumping of the Fukushima nuclear waste as “safe”.
The Australian Embassy in Tokyo even staged a “Fukushima fish and chips” dinner as a public relations stunt in support of the nuclear wastewater release.
Boyle said the Australian government was a “bad Pacific neighbour” because it is undermining a nuclear-free Pacific by supporting the dumping of nuclear waste, dumping nuclear waste on Aboriginal land and entering the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal.
Katti Jisuk Seo, a Korean-German who now lives here, said while enjoying her first scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef the news about the toxic waste came through.
“Japan is sending its radioactive waste on a trip around the world,” she said.
“Japan plans to release 1.3 million tons of radioactive contaminated wastewater into the ocean over the next decades: that’s enough to fill at least 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
“From the Pacific it will reach beaches and seas globally, entering fish, marine plants, other sea creatures and mammals throughout the marine food chain. Via evaporation, through rainfall, it will find its way back onto the lands across our planet.”
David Rho, the rally MC, called on the Japanese government to “accept an independent assessment of the Fukushima wastewater, and to release the true test result”. He said AUKUS represented further nuclear escalation in the region and must be opposed.
Risk assessment and the nuclear cultists
Damian Meagher From Facebook page Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch 17 Sept 23
Risk assessment is a complex subject, but nuclear cultist would have you believe it is a simple straightforward matter. There are at least two aspects of risk that they always ignore.
The first is the issue of risk consent.
Some risks in life are ones that consenting adults decide to take. For example, they might go rock climbing or skydiving, or some other adventure sport. Or they might smoke, drink to excess or have an unhealthy diet.
These are examples of risks that they have decided to take.
There is another type of risk though. Risks that are imposed on a person.
Your neighbour might bring home an ill trained guard dog and allow it to roam the streets without supervision. A food manufacturer may include dangerous ingredients in their product and not disclose this fact. A person might drink and drive and cause an injury to another person.
These are examples of risks that exist, but that are imposed on a person who has NOT consented to that risk.
All risks can be analysed both as to the probability of the risk as well as what consequences the risk poses. The risk of being involved in a minor car accident at some point in your life is rather high, but the likely consequences are minimal.
Proper risk management assesses BOTH the likelihood of a risk AND the potential consequences.Poor nuclear cultists don’t use this method, as it immediately highlights a significant problem that nuclear faces.While the likelihood of an accident is low, the consequences can be catastrophic. The victims of such an accident did not consent to this risk. It is imposed on them.
Chernobyl (an accident that cultists like Goronwy Price prefer to ignore) had impacts both health and economic, right across the northern hemisphere. The victims had the risk imposed upon them. This is fundamentally unjust. N-Cultists are happy to put other people at risk regardless.
Antarctic sea-ice at ‘mind-blowing’ low alarms experts
2
The sea-ice surrounding Antarctica is well below any previous recorded
winter level, satellite data shows, a worrying new benchmark for a region
that once seemed resistant to global warming. “It’s so far outside anything
we’ve seen, it’s almost mind-blowing,” says Walter Meier, who monitors
sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center. An unstable Antarctica
could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica’s huge
ice expanse regulates the planet’s temperature, as the white surface
reflects the Sun’s energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water
beneath and near it. Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could
transform from Earth’s refrigerator to a radiator, experts say.
BBC 17th Sept 2023
Peter Dutton wants Australia to jump on the VERY UNECONOMIC “nuclear train”
| NUMBERS NUKE PETER’S PIPE DREAM – Crikey Worm 18 Sept 23 |
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report.
Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”./************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************/**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.lOpposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report. Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”.
Eating the three-eyed fish: where is Australia on nuclear wastewater in the Pacific?
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
by Emma Shortis https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/eating-the-three-eyed-fish-where-is-australia-on-nuclear-wastewater-in-the-pacific/00
The Australian government’s muted response to Japan’s release of Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific raises serious questions about its commitment to the region and Australia’s history of standing against nuclear testing.
In August, Japan began what will be a decades-long process of releasing more than one million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown into the Pacific Ocean.
Though deemed in compliance with international safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the release of water containing tritium – a form of radioactive hydrogen – has been met with significant opposition.
Most of that opposition has come, unsurprisingly, from China. In June, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the “ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer.”
Opposition from Japan’s other neighbours and allies, meanwhile, has been muted. After expressing significant concerns, the governments of nearby nations like Korea have apparently been assuaged by promises of regulatory compliance – notwithstanding the continued opposition of local environmental and industry groups.
What appears to have happened is that the release of irradiated water into the world’s biggest ocean has been drawn all too quickly into either side of the now well-worn battle lines of “strategic competition” in the Indo-Pacific. Opposition and acquiescence fell easily, and predictably, into the binary framing of US President Biden’s world of democracies versus autocracies. So the focus of dissent has been on China.
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Pacific Islander peoples have been expressing their significant, historically grounded concerns about the Fukushima release since the plan was announced. In June, a member of the Pacific Islands Forum independent panel of experts, appointed to support the Pacific Islands in consultations with Japan over the release, questioned the IAEA sign-off, arguing that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data…extremely concerning.”
The “unanimous conclusion” of the expert panel was that “this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
So where is Australia, an apparently critical player in the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, in all this?
This country, we have long been told, is “committed to our Pacific family, and to working together to realise our shared vision for a stable, secure and prosperous region, and to support the aspirations of Pacific island countries.”
But in a short statement released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade just before the wastewater release began, the Australian government expressed “confidence in the process that has led to the decision by Japan to release the treated water.” In February, Foreign Minister Penny Wong acknowledged the concerns of Pacific Islanders, but was assured that “transparency and trust” were in place. In a move redolent of an iconic Simpsons episode, diplomatic staff at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo even went so far as to enjoy a meal of “Fukushima fish and chips”.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
This muted reaction is doubly disappointing from a country, and a party, that has a long and proud history of both contesting nuclear activity in the Pacific and standing up to Japanese efforts to trample environmental consensus.
For decades, and particularly in the 1990s, Australian labor governments stood alongside Pacific Island nations in furiously contesting French nuclear testing. Stretching into the 2000s, Australian governments remained staunch in their opposition to Japanese “scientific” whaling. In both cases, Australia successfully expressed significant opposition to the damaging actions of an important strategic ally. In both cases, that opposition was mostly contained to the specific issue at hand, and did not impinge on broader security relationships – which, even if they became tense, never broke down completely and have now fully recovered.
In the same Department that joyously expressed its “confidence” in Japan and effectively ignored its “family” in the Pacific, there is – or at least there should be – deep institutional knowledge of how to manage strong disagreements and successfully cordon them off from deeper security ties. Our history should make us confident that we can – and should – share and support the legitimate, evidence-based anger of our Pacific family.
So why isn’t the Australian government condemning, loudly, the release of nuclear wastewater into the world’s largest ocean?
As is becoming increasingly clear, the Labor Party’s decision to support the Morrison government’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines has far-reaching consequences. That decision, made within a matter of hours, has unthinkingly shattered many labor traditions – the most relevant of which here is that long, proud history of labor governments unapologetically standing against rich and powerful nuclear powers treating the Pacific as a dumping ground.
The insistence that Australia “needs” AUKUS has apparently created a reluctance to engage in that discussion in good faith, most likely to avoid the topic of nuclear waste as much as possible – now, because of Labor’s doubling down on AUKUS, a sensitive topic domestically.
AUKUS also points to another factor – this government’s extreme insecurity over issues of foreign and security policy. As was made clear at Labor’s recent national conference, party leadership is determined not to be wedged on issues of national security. Despite all the talk of being able to have “adult conversations”, the government is not willing to allow even the slightest appearance of concession to China, around which every aspect of foreign and security policy now revolves. While on paper, wastewater dumping looks like it should fall into Wong’s category of “cooperate where we can”, in reality, we cannot be opposed to something China opposes, because we are not, and can never be, on the same side about anything – even if that thing is the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
This framing of a world divided into enemies and allies now extends into all of Australia’s relationships. The Australian government’s reaction to the Fukushima release, and its broader relationship with Japan, make that abundantly clear. As a member of the Quad, alongside India and the United States, Japan is regarded as critical to “stability” in the Indo-Pacific and to countering or containing China. That now means, apparently, that Japan can effectively dictate Australian policy – it can be assured of our “confidence” that dumping radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean is fine, actually, and that also, we’d better not even consider phasing out the export of fossil gas to a critical ally, lest we undermine our own security and the stability of our region.
Taken together, all of this – bad faith engagement with the Pacific, AUKUS, and the ongoing insistence that our own use and export of fossil fuels is necessary to regional stability – reveal a deeply uncomfortable truth about this labor government.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, it does not take climate change seriously. Nor does it take nuclear hygiene seriously. And questions have to be asked about its long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Like its predecessors, this government is hiding behind security in order to avoid doing the hard work on climate. That weakness, which extends across all areas of domestic and international policy, is why the Australian government is not “committed” to “our Pacific family”, not really.
In failing to support Pacific Islanders’ aspirations for a nuclear-free Pacific, and in failing to rapidly decarbonise, the Australian government shows “our family” who we are, every day. And they see it.
This, in the words of the Prime Minister, is how Australia deals with “the world as it is.” Our Pacific family could be forgiven for thinking that our vision of a “bright future” for the world is one in which nuclear-powered submarines prowl silently through a rising, irradiated Pacific.
Two years after AUKUS announcement, American politicians are divided on delivery of submarines to Australia
ABC By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan in Washington DC, 16 Sept 23
A Republican senator has renewed calls for the US to step up its production of nuclear-powered submarines before selling them as part of AUKUS, arguing America is as “unprepared” as it was ahead of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The US is set to transfer at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the early 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
However, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, Roger Wicker, told a hearing in Washington this week that the US was failing to meet its own shipbuilding targets.
“We should be producing somewhere between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year to fulfil our own requirements as we implement AUKUS,” he said………….
Senator Wicker insists he supports the AUKUS agreement but has refused to back legislation in congress authorising the transfer of the submarines, arguing substantial new investments are needed in America’s shipbuilding capacity first.
In a letter to the president last month, he and 24 other Republicans argued selling submarines to Australia without a clear plan to replace them would “unacceptably weaken” the US fleet at the same time that China expands its military power.
Push for speed amid prospect of another Trump term
The AUKUS agreement will see Australia obtain up to five Virginia-class submarines from the US before eventually building its own nuclear-powered boats.
But two years after the deal was first announced, the US Congress still needs to sign off on several legislative proposals to progress it.
They include legislation to approve the sale of the subs, to allow Australia to make a promised $3 billion contribution to US shipyards, and to facilitate the sharing of sensitive technology………………………………………………………………………………………………
The political debate in the United States comes amid ongoing questions in Australia about the merits and the cost of AUKUS, which could have a price tag of up to $386 billion…………………………
Tensions within the Labor Party were exposed at its recent national conference, while former prime minister Paul Keating has described the agreement as the “worst deal in all history”.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles also previously expressed confidence in the level of bipartisan support for the agreement in the US………………………………
Big batteries and solar push new boundaries on the grid
The rapid evolution of Australia’s energy system continues apace as the
mild weather of spring and new production benchmarks give voice to the new
capacity that has been added over the past 12 months. As noted earlier this
week, spring is the season for new records because of the good conditions
and moderate demand.
In South Australia on Sunday, solar set a new record
of 120 per cent of local demand in the state (the excess was exported to
Victoria) and on Wednesday and Thursday it was the turn of wind and battery
storage. Wind hit a peak of 141.4 per cent of local demand at 4.35am on
Thursday morning. That wasn’t a record in itself, but the big share of
wind and later solar during the daytime was accompanied by a record amount
of activity from the state’s growing fleet of big batteries.
Renew Economy 14th Sept 2023
The normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools
Solidarity Brakfast (transcript of podcast)
Saturday, 9 September 2023 – 7:30am to 9:00am https://www.3cr.org.au/solidaritybreakfast/episode/palestine-laboratory-ii-militarization-schools-ii-within-these-walls-ii
Annie interviews Sanne de Swart from ACE Nuclear-Free Collective (Friends of the Earth Melbourne) on the normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools.
The issue of normalising nuclear weapons and nuclear power has become a hot topic. STEM competitions financed by weapons companies supported by the Ministry of Defence.
- Friends of the Earth Nuclear Free Collective has an email petition to Environment Ministers to show dissent on this and has other suggestions for actions https://www.melbournefoe.org.au/no_defence_curriculum
Sanne de Swart. Normalisation of nuclear promotion under the guise of STEM education. Nuclear propulsion submarine challenge is directed at primary school students. Very young kids groomed to take part in military preparation. Teachers approached FOE with their concernsVictorian teachers unions are resisting this, and the matter has been taken up by Australian teachers union. AEU federal executive has condemned the programme.Education department guidelines are not to accept sponsorships from tobacco companies. and weapons companies. The STEM hub is working together with Dept of Defence and with BAE weapons manufacturer to promote this nuclear submarine technology.. BAE has been taken to the UN over human rights issues. BAE has pecuniary interest in this promotion.
Vic Education Dept is in breach of their own policy by promoting this actively on their website. Use of financial support from large weapons companies in our schools is against Victorian education Dept policy, probably also the policy in NSW. and SA. STEM education – impression given that STEM has only relevance to fighting machines..
Sanne – But really the STEM hub – we will need the brightest minds for the transition to a greener, more liveable society, need engineering and science and technology. This programme is taking away from that need, and directing education towards militarism and war efforts.It also fails to acknowledge from a nuclear perspective the devastating history around nuclear, that Australia has, starting from the British nuclear bomb tests 70 years ago , through to uranium mining and trying to impose radioactive waste dumps on Aboriginal land, all of which disproportionately affects First Nations people.
The Victorian Education Department is very actively promoting the nuclear submarine project The whole government, with AUKUS deal, is preparing for war, and being quite straightforward about that. Probably the Ed Dept is working with the Defence Dept on the same pathTeachers are concerned that this happening in their classrooms. That it is so explicit. Even BAE Systems is saying they want to create an extraordinary workforce. ADF Careers are talking about the pipeline of recruits that they need. Real concerns from teachers that this will be taught in their classrooms, and that the military agenda will be perpetuated for children – which is irresponsible and unethical, because children under 18 – it is all about positive brand association, they cannot make those decisions, as adults can, they are being groomed from a very young age.
Primary school programmes.
There is a LEGO challenge that is ongoing – also run by weapons companies The weapons companies come in, and promote what they do as something exciting and innovative. There’s a programme called Beacon – it is targeted at years 4 to 6 students. It is funded by BAE Systems – it is less explicit – focussed towards AUKUS, but it’s focussed at lower socioeconomic areas and schools,. That makes it hard for schools to say “No” to them, because those come as well-resourced projects. It is quite insidious in the way that it is targeted at young children, to have that positive brand association with military and weapons companies.I think that this is happening in other countries as well. Teachers in Britainhave been working on this, tooFOE has a few calls for action, for teachers to become aware of this. Also parents are encouraged to take this up , FOE is contacting the government on the issue.There is a lack of alternative programmes for STEM education
63 Members of Parliament call on US to free Assange
Sixty-three MPs and senators have written a strong letter calling on the US to stop persecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and warning of ‘a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia’ if he is extradited from the UK
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’
Sixty-three Australian MPs and senators have signed a letter demanding that “the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end”, Guardian Australia reports, warning it is eroding our respect for the US justice system.
The WikiLeaks founder, who is languishing in the UK’s Belmarsh prison, has suffered for a decade in various states of incarceration — it’s “wrong”, “serves no purpose” and is “unjust” for him to be further persecuted, they wrote. The US wants him on charges under the Espionage Act because of the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But if he is extradited, “there will be a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia”.
The latest supporters included Labor’s Shayne Neumann and Louise Pratt, and the Coalition’s Melissa Price, and Opposition leader Peter Dutton has also called for Assange’s return. A bipartisan Assange delegation leaves for Washington next week. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/63-mps-letter-us-free-assange/
Nuclear subs challenge trains 10 year old children for war
By Sue WarehamSep 11, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-subs-challenge-trains-10-year-old-children-for-war/
It’s time for education ministers across the country to show leadership and protect our children from vested interests and pro-war propaganda.
On 19 June, the Defence Department launched its Nuclear-Powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge, for years 7 – 12 students across the nation. The program seeks to engage the enthusiasm of young people for the complex and hugely controversial nuclear submarine program, in the hope that some of the students will want to contribute to this form of war-fighting when they leave school.
The nuclear submarine proposal has implications that go far beyond the understanding of the students targeted for this program (which include those as young as 11 years). They include the nuclear weapons proliferation potential, the consequences of a war – possibly nuclear war – with China, for which the submarines are planned, the problem of high-level, long-lived nuclear waste for which there is no solution anywhere, and the matter of what else will suffer financially as we attempt the gargantuan task of paying for this program. In the absence of any awareness or understanding of this context, the schools program is little more than propaganda.
The program fits with the growing prevalence of private weapons company-sponsored STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) programs in schools. Their purpose is to create positive brand name associations, such as happy memories, from which can flow varying degrees of attachment to the corporate brand. Company logos are displayed on all materials, and there is often direct contact between students, teachers and company representatives. An underfunded public education system is perfect for the companies’ purposes, because overstretched teachers will welcome material that might make their job a little easier.
There is ample evidence that children are very susceptible to the creation of positive associations with an advertised product. Even into adolescence, children don’t necessarily have the skills to critically assess the intentions behind persuasive marketing tactics, or understand what a brand or product really represents.
The militarisation of STEM education is not confined to our schools (and universities, which comprise a huge network in themselves of weapons company partnerships). The National Youth Science Forum has as its primary sponsor Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest weapons maker. The Questacon National Science and Technology Centre in Canberra receives major funding for its Engineering is Elementary program from the Defence Department, with ADF engineers being actively involved in delivering the program.
The industry’s need is for a workforce socialised to accept warfare as inevitable and the industry itself as always a force for good. The “Minors and Missiles” report of the Medical Association for Prevention of War outlines the problem, its extent in Australia and how it can be addressed. The new organisation Teachers for Peace works to this end also.
In relation to the nuclear submarine challenge for schools, on 1 July the Adelaide Advertiser published an article “Kids, 10, training for to build a workforce for AUKUS, SA’s $368bn nuclear submarine project”, about the Beacon program in some schools, run in conjunction with weapons giant BAE Systems. Among other activities, it allows students to virtually load and fire weaponry, one student stating “It’s a lot more fun, it’s like playing a video game but it’s a lot more educational”. Such presentation of warfare and its associated hardware to children as a game – which extends also to our war commemoration – is an abuse of their right to aspire to live in a peaceful society.
An additional concern with the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge is that it anti-democratically circumvents strong community opposition to a technology – nuclear power – which has been consistently rejected by the Australian people. Barely a person in the country, including in our parliament, was even asked about the nuclear submarines, and yet the opposition to the proposal is strong, with much highly critical commentary. To ignore all that and go straight to the next generation with exciting prizes is reprehensible.
On 31 August, the Federal Executive of the Australian Education Union (AEU) passed a strong resolution reaffirming the AEU’s deep commitment to peace and its opposition to militarism. In relation to the nuclear submarine challenge, the resolution stated that the AEU “condemns this program, and the use of Australian schools by the Defence Department, in drawing secondary students into the government’s development of new industries focused on armament manufacture and industries associated with warfare.”
It continued “A politicised pro-AUKUS curriculum has no place in our schools, alongside other private industries who attempt to use schools as a vehicle for promotion of their own products and profits hidden behind spurious educational benefits for students.”
The AEU is to be applauded. It’s time for education ministers across the country to show the same leadership in protecting our children from vested interests and pro-war propaganda.
Nuclear energy remains weapon of choice for climate deniers and coal lobby.
ReNeweconomy, Giles Parkinson 11 September 2023
The Nationals, and the Liberal Party coalition partners, are in furious
agreement: They are not the slightest bit serious about strong climate
action, and the only difference between former National leader Barnaby
Joyce and current leader David Littleproud is that Joyce wants to stop the
pretence.
Littleproud, let’s remember, believes that net zero 2050 means
not having to do much any time soon. Like too many corporates, and the
fossil fuel industry in particular, it’s an excuse to sit around and do
nothing – make some grand promises and wait for some new technology to come
along that doesn’t disrupt their business plan. Nuclear, and small modular
reactors, are a perfect tool for this. SMRs don’t exist in any western
country, do not have a licence to exist, and no-one – even in the nuclear
industry – seriously believes they will be in commercial production within
a decade, if then.
Renew Economy 11th Sept 2023
Waste site: Govt reveals bill for dumped Kimba nuclear facility
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
The high cost of the federal government’s failed bid for a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been revealed.
Resources Minister Madeleine King says that $108.6 million was spent on preparations for establishing the now dumped National Radioactive Waste Management Facility near Kimba between July 1, 2014, and August 11, 2023.
The figure was given in response to a Senate Question lodged by Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick on August 11, but information relating to his questions about further expected expenditure of taxpayer dollars around the project was not provided.
King was asked whether the government planned to select a new site before May 17, 2025 – the last date before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can call a federal election – or whether the Woomera Prohibited Area in SA’s outback was being considered.
“Information on expenditure and site selection will be available once the government has considered options and made decisions in due course,” SA Labor Senator Don Farrell said while answering the question on behalf of King.
The news comes after the federal government announced in August it was walking away from the Napandee plan after seven years of consultation and promises of around $31 million in incentives for the Kimba region.
Its decision was triggered by a Federal Court ruling in favour of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation’s battle to stop the low-level waste repository on the Eyre Peninsula.
The costly court battle centred on the Barngarla arguing that Indigenous owners were not consulted by the former Morrison Government when it announced it had won “majority support” of 61 per cent in the community for the Napandee site.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth quashed former Liberal Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s decision to build the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba, saying it was affected “by bias”.
InDaily reported last year that in reply to questions on notice, SA senator Barbara Pocock heard that since January 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Government had spent at least $9,905,737 on legal work for the nuclear waste dump and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency.
Work has now been halted at the Napandee site and King said work already completed would be reversed.
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
“It was clear back in February 2018, when I initiated a Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, that the selection process had gone off the rails,” Patrick said.
“The then government were cautioned about the flawed nature of the process, but ignored the findings and recommendations of the inquiry.
“There is a $110 million dollar lesson for the current Government in the need to engage the community and listen when dealing with these sorts of programs.”
He called on the federal government to be more open with the community with its AUKUS nuclear submarine program in relation to what will happen in relation to nuclear stewardship, operational radioactive waste and dealing with spent nuclear fuel rods.
Federal government spent $100 million on now abandoned nuclear waste dump near Kimba
ABC News, By Ethan Rix, 12Sept 23,
Key points:
- The Federal Resources Minister said the government had spent $108.6 million
- The Commonwealth abandoned plans to build the facility after a Federal Court ruling
- Former SA senator Rex Patrick said the “waste” of taxpayer money could have been avoided
………………………. Senator Rennick also questioned whether the government would find a new location for the NRWMF before May 17, 2025 and if the government would consider placing the facility within the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Ms King said that information about a future site and any further spending would be available once the government had “considered options and made decisions in due course”……………………………………………………………
Former resources minister had ‘foreclosed mind’
Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth found there had been apprehended bias in the decision-making process under then-resources minister Keith Pitt.
Justice Charlesworth found that Mr Pitt — who formally declared the site in 2021 — could be seen to have had a “foreclosed mind” on the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made up”.
The court set aside the declaration from 2021 that the site at Napandee, a 211-hectare property, be used for the facility.
Following the Federal Court ruling, Ms King told federal parliament in August that Australia still needed a nuclear storage facility and that the government remained committed to finding a solution that did not involve the Napandee site.
………………………………Mr Patrick said he was concerned that the current Labor government had not learnt any lessons from the recent Federal Court ruling.
“The lesson that needs to be learned, in relation to this, is you need to properly engage [with] a community to get a social licence,” he said.
He said it was clear the government “has their eye on” the Woomera Prohibited Area as a potential location for the facility, which is a military testing range more than 400 kilometres north of Adelaide.
“They are simply not being transparent — they’re not talking about it and that’s going to end up in tears in several years’ time.”
A spokesperson for Ms King said she has instructed her department to develop “policy options” for managing Commonwealth radioactive waste into the future. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/commonwealth-kimba-napandee-nuclear-waste-dump-100-million/102840994
Australia’s Navy Pursues Nuclear Submarines and AI-Powered Ghost Sharks
the potential for AI-driven robots to make lethal decisions independently,
https://www.gktoday.in/australias-navy-pursues-nuclear-submarines-and-ai-powered-ghost-sharks 10 Sept 23
Australia’s Navy is adopting two contrasting approaches to advanced submarine technology to address the challenges posed by a rising China. On one hand, Australia is investing in a costly and slow project to acquire up to 13 nuclear-powered attack submarines. On the other hand, Australia is rapidly developing AI-powered unmanned submarines called “Ghost Sharks,” AI-powered subs will be delivered in the near future, offering a cost-effective and swift solution to enhance naval capabilities. The divergent approaches highlight the transformative impact of automation and AI on modern warfare.
How do the cost and delivery timelines of the nuclear submarines and Ghost Sharks differ?
The nuclear submarines are estimated to cost over AUD$28 billion each and will not be delivered until well past the middle of the century. In contrast, Ghost Sharks have a per-unit cost of just over AUD$23 million and will be delivered by mid-2025.
Significance of the Ghost Shark project
The Ghost Shark project illustrates the transformative impact of automation and AI on modern warfare, offering a cost-effective and swift solution to enhance naval capabilities. Such AI-powered unmanned submarines can operate autonomously, descend to greater depths, and be deployed in large numbers without risking human lives. They offer increased flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform maneuvers that might be impossible for crewed submarines.
Link to Geopolitical Challenges?
Australia’s investments in advanced submarine technology are linked to the geopolitical challenges posed by a rising China in the Asia-Pacific region. These developments are part of efforts to maintain military capabilities and respond to regional security concerns.
nfluence of AI
AI technology is influencing the development of various military capabilities, including autonomous weapons, fighter drones, swarming aerial drones, and ground combat vehicles. AI is also playing a role in data analysis and decision support for military commanders.
The AI technology arms race has high stakes in terms of military dominance and geopolitical influence. Winning the race could reshape the global political and economic order, with potential consequences for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Challenges of AI
Challenges and concerns include the potential for AI-driven robots to make lethal decisions independently, the need for regulation related to the military application of AI, and the ethical considerations of using AI in warfare, including the targeting of combatants and non-combatants.
Private Sector’s Role
Private companies like Anduril are actively involved in developing AI-powered military technologies. They are contributing to the development of autonomous systems, sensor fusion, computer vision, edge computing, and AI, with applications in various defense domains, including submarines, drones, and counter-drone systems.
1 This month
25 October – Film –Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story – part of the Adelaide Film Festival,
Screening and Conversation
A screening of Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story (2024) followed by a talk with 2026 Bettison and James Awardee and Tradtional Owner Karina Lester in conversation with Simone Tur.
When: Sun 25 Oct, 12:00pm-Screening, 1:15pm-Talk
Where: The Mercury
Free admission, register below by clicking on BUY TICKETS and select free event tickets, at end of web page:
https://www.adelaidefilmfestival.org/program/2026/britains-nuclear-bomb-scandal-our-story
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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
