Refuting myths about nuclear and renewable energy
15 Oct 2024, Mark Diesendorf, https://renew.org.au/renew-magazine/renew/refuting-myths-about-nuclear-and-renewable-energy/
There’s a lot of talk at present about nuclear energy being a strong contender in Australia’s energy market. But how much is political spin getting in the way of fact? Dr Mark Diesendorf unpacks some of the myths that are out there.
The AUKUS agreement has given renewed stimulus to the nuclear energy lobby. With campaign support from the Murdoch press, they have increased their efforts to denigrate renewable energy and to promote nuclear energy and fossil gas in its place.
Because of the sheer volume of their campaign and the difficulty of publishing fact checks and refutations in the mass media, public opinion polls indicate that some people seem to be taking the misleading claims of the nuclear lobby seriously. In this article, I seek to refute the principal myths the lobby is disseminating.
Myth: Renewables cannot supply 100% electricity
Denmark, South Australia and Scotland already obtain 88%, 74% and 62% of their respective annual electricity generations from renewables, mostly wind. Scotland actually supplies the equivalent of 113% of its electricity consumption from renewables; the difference between its generation and consumption is exported by transmission line.
All three jurisdictions have achieved this with relatively small amounts of hydroelectricity, zero in South Australia. Given the political will, South Australia and Denmark could reach 100% net renewables generation by 2030, as indeed two northern states of Germany have already done. The ‘net’ means they trade some electricity with neighbours but on average will be at 100% renewables.
Computer simulations by several research groups, including ours at UNSW, using real hourly wind, solar and demand data spanning several years, show that the Australian electricity system could be run entirely on renewable energy, with the main contributions coming from solar and wind. System reliability can be maintained by a combination of storage, building excess generating capacity for wind and solar (which is cheap), key transmission links, and demand management encouraged by transparent pricing.
Storage to fill infrequent troughs in generation from the variable renewable sources will comprise existing hydro, pumped hydro (mostly small-scale and off-river), and batteries. Geographic dispersion of renewables will also assist.
For the rare extended periods of Dunkelflaute (literally ‘dark doldrums’), gas turbines with stores of biofuels or green hydrogen could be kept in reserve as insurance.
Coal and nuclear power stations are too inflexible in operation to be useful as backup—they require a whole day to start up from cold and, when operating, have difficulty and increased costs in attempting to vary their output to follow the peaks and troughs in demand.
Myth: We need baseload power stations
This is an old, discredited claim that refers to the past when variable renewables (wind and solar) were absent and the fossil fuelled electricity supply system consisted mainly of two types of power station: baseload and peak load.
Baseload power stations, such as coal and nuclear, operate 24/7 at maximum power output, except then they break down or undergo planned maintenance. Because of their inflexibility in operation, the former system also needed to supplement baseload with peak load power stations, hydro-electric and gas turbines. Peak load stations can vary their output rapidly in response to rapid changes in demand or breakdowns in baseload supply.
When a nuclear power reactor breaks down, it can be useless for weeks or months. For a conventional large reactor rated at 1000 to 1600 megawatts, the impact of breakdown on electricity supply can be disastrous. Big nuclear needs big back-up, which is expensive. Small modular reactors are not commercially available nor likely to be in the foreseeable future.
A renewable electricity system, including storage, delivers the same reliability, and hence the same economic value, as the traditional fossil fuelled system based on a mix of baseload and peak-load power stations.
Myth: Gas can fill the gap until nuclear is constructed
As a fuel for electricity generation, fossil gas in eastern Australia is many times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal, so it’s not generally used for baseload power. Instead, it’s used for fuelling gas turbines for meeting the peaks in demand and helping to fill troughs in supply. For this purpose, it contributes about 5% of Australia’s annual electricity generation. But, as storage expands, fossil gas will become redundant in the electricity system.
The fact that baseload gas-fired electricity generation continues temporarily in Western Australia results from a unique history. Unlike the eastern states, WA has a Domestic Gas Reservation Policy that insulates domestic customers from the high export prices of gas. However, most new gas supplies would have to come from high-cost unconventional sources.
South Australia has an ancient, struggling, gas-fired power station, Torrens Island, that was originally regarded as baseload, but can no longer perform as baseload. It will be closed in 2026 and replaced with renewables and batteries. South Australia will soon have 100% renewable electricity without a single baseload power station.
Myth: Nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables
Assuming that Australia would not buy nuclear reactors from China or Russia, the only choices are the European Nuclear Reactor and the Westinghouse AP-1000 (or variants thereof). The former type is under construction in Finland, France and the UK. In each case, construction times have greatly increased and original cost estimates have tripled or more.
In South Carolina USA, two AP-1000 reactors were abandoned while under construction due to delays and cost escalation—under state law the electricity customers had to pay for the failed project. In Georgia USA, two AP-1000 reactors have just been completed at double the original cost. They are the only new nuclear power reactors commenced in the USA since the 1970s and completed. Nuclear power projects bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017.
South Korea is exporting its modification of the Westinghouse reactor, the APR-1400, subsidised by an unknown amount by its government. Its only export project so far, the Barakah project in UAE, is three years behind schedule—the extent of its cost overrun is unknown.
The state-owned Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) has a debt equivalent to US$149 billion resulting mainly from its nuclear investments.
All expert studies—e.g. by CSIRO, AEMO, and the multinational investment advisor Lazard—find that nuclear is the most expensive electricity generating technology, while solar PV and wind are the cheapest. This is true after including the cost of ‘firming’ renewables with storage.
Contrary to the claims of some nuclear proponents, the levelised cost method used in these studies takes account of the different lifetimes of the technologies. It also includes the cost of connecting the power stations to the main grid. While renewables will need a few additional major high-voltage transmission links, so would nuclear.
Myth: Nuclear energy can co-exist with large contributions from renewables
This myth has two refutations:
- Nuclear is too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for variable wind and solar. Its very high capital cost necessitates running it constantly at full power, not just during periods of low sun or wind. This would mean offloading renewables, although they are much cheaper to operate.
- On current growth trends of renewables, there will be no room for nuclear energy in South Australia, Victoria or NSW. The 2022 shares of renewables in total electricity generation in each of these states were 74%, 37% and 33% respectively. Rapid growth from these levels is likely. It’s already too late for nuclear in SA. Provided the growth of renewables is not deliberately suppressed in NSW and Victoria, these states too will reach 100% renewables long before the first nuclear power station could go online
Myth: There is insufficient land for wind and solar
Although a wind farm may span a large area, its turbines, access road and substation together occupy a tiny fraction of that area, typically about 2%. Most wind farms are built on land that was previously cleared for agriculture and are compatible with all forms of agriculture. Off-shore wind occupies no land.
Solar farms are increasingly being built sufficiently high off the ground to allow sheep to graze beneath them, providing welcome shade. This practice, known as agrivoltaics, provides additional farm revenue that’s especially valuable during droughts. Rooftop solar occupies no land.
Myth: Nuclear energy is safe
Nuclear energy is dangerous for three reasons: its contribution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the impacts of nuclear accidents and the task of managing high-level nuclear wastes for 100,000 years or more.
The two principal nuclear explosives are Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. Both can be obtained from the nuclear energy supply chain.
Under the cloak of nuclear energy, several countries—the UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa—have produced nuclear weapons either by further enrichment of uranium to increase the concentration of Uranium-235 beyond the level (3-4%) required for nuclear energy or by extracting Plutonium-239 from the spent fuel of their nuclear power reactors.
In addition, the following countries have attempted to use nuclear power to produce nuclear explosives while cloaking their development of nuclear weapons: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Libya, South Korea and Taiwan.
Fortunately, they did not complete their programs for various reasons. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked.
The most serious nuclear accidents were the Kyshtym disaster in the former USSR in 1957, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA in 1979, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. Except for Three Mile Island, which took the US to the brink of a major disaster, each of these accidents have likely caused many thousands of cancer deaths from exposure to ionising radiation.
There are no operating permanent repositories for high-level nuclear wastes. Finland is the only country that’s close to completing a deep underground repository. The USA spent billions developing one at an unsuitable site in Nevada and then had to abandon it.
At present, high-level wastes are in temporary storage above ground at nuclear reactor sites, either in steel and concrete casks or in pools of water.
The contrast between nuclear and renewable energy technologies is demonstrated by their respective responses to the earthquake and tsunami that struck the Pacific coast of Japan in 2011.
At the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power station, three of the six nuclear reactors melted down, accompanied by hydrogen explosions that expelled vast amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.
Further down the coast at Kamisu, the tsunami passed through a near-shore wind farm located in the surf (see picture) without stopping it. It was only shut down when the grid went down and recommenced operating when the grid was restored three days later.
In summary
Renewables—solar, wind and existing hydro—together with storage and energy efficiency, can supply all Australia’s electricity and ultimately all energy, including transportation and heating.
Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, too slow to build, and too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for wind and solar. A nuclear scenario would inevitably involve the suppression of clean, inexpensive, safe renewables.
Congressional report suggests Australia could dump plans to acquire AUKUS nuclear submarines
“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,”
“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership – Greens Senator David Shoebridge
ABC News, By Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene and State Political Reporter Rory McClare, 18 Oct 24
In short
An influential US research body has published a report arguing Australia could invest in long-range bombers and other capabilities instead of nuclear-powered submarines.
The report says there is “little indication” that “rigorous” analysis was conducted on whether there were more cost-effective options.
What’s next?
Greens senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent, said the AUKUS partnership looked like a “surrender” of Australian interests.
Research prepared for the United States Congress argues Australia could abandon its $368 billion AUKUS push to buy nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), outlining several alternatives including US owned boats serving both nations.
According to the report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), billions of Australian dollars could instead be diverted to military capabilities for this country and the US, such as missiles and B-21 long-range bombers.
Under the AUKUS Pillar 1 plan, US and British nuclear submarines will rotate out of Western Australia from 2027, before Australia buys up to five second-hand Virginia class boats in the 2030s, and then begins constructing a new fleet known as SSN-AUKUS.
In the 105-page report, a number of policy options are presented including Australia no longer purchasing US submarines but instead having American boats perform missions on its behalf, while still continuing to design and build the SSN-AUKUS fleet.
“An alternative to Pillar 1 as currently structured would be a US-Australia military division of labour under which US SSNs would perform both US and Australian SSN missions while Australia invested in military capabilities for performing non-SSN missions for both Australia and the United States,” the report reads.
“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities — such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft.
“Under this variation, the size of the US SSN force would eventually be expanded above previously planned levels by eight boats (i.e., the planned eventual number of SSNs that Australia had planned to acquire).”
Using stark language, the report warns that the costs of AUKUS Pillar 1 for Australia could “reduce, perhaps significantly, funding within Australia’s military budget for other Australian military capabilities” particularly if the project’s budget blows out.
“If this were to occur, there could be a net negative impact on Australia’s overall military capabilities for deterring potential Chinese aggression,” the report says.
The CRS report claims no alternatives were ever considered by AUKUS partners and concludes by diverted spending elsewhere it would help “create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.
“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project … an analysis of alternatives (AOA) or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.
Proposals a ‘strategic surrender’
Greens Senator David Shoebridge, a vocal opponent of AUKUS, says the proposals outlined in the congressional report appeared more like “a strategic surrender than a partnership”.
“This division of power no doubt makes sense from a US perspective with Australia providing them with funds and bases and getting no actual submarines,” he said.
“From an Australian perspective that looks far more like a strategic surrender than a partnership.
“For the US, the whole AUKUS deal always had at its heart US access to Australian real estate for their submarines, bombers and marines, with any marginal additional Australian capacity being very much secondary.”……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-17/report-suggests-australia-dump-aukus-nuclear-submarine-plans/104486868—
Inside the room that loves Nuclear Ted
The Opposition’s fission frontman Ted O’Brien was in his element at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear conference last week, feeling the love from a hot-to-trot audience swallowing every word from a smooth-talking messiah . Freelance Journalist Murray Hogarth was there and imbibed the vibe — but not the glow-in-the-dark Kool-Aid.
by MURRAY HOGARTH., https://thepolitics.com.au/inside-the-rooms-that-love-nuclear-ted/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF8E1hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeNqjz022ugJko-9VboOWN2DC-94pA7Y5ifdvNwZFTZ_YaikPJPpvYhkNw_aem_dxORDyGfCPnc4VD223hWhA 16 Oct 24
Ted O’Brien MP was confecting political outrage, playing to Australia’s ultimate pro-nuclear audience in Sydney last Friday. The day before, the Albanese Labor government had sprung a pre-election surprise on the Liberal-National coalition, and O’Brien as its nuclear torchbearer, when it forced through a tactical parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy.
“It was hard not to be a little bit suspicious, not just because there’d been zero engagement on this,” he confided, eager to share his take on the backstory to how the Coalition had been politically blindsided and outmuscled.
O’Brien was in high dudgeon about the inquiry’s terms of reference, but mainly about its committee having four Labor government members versus two from the Coalition, a two-to-one ratio, plus one from the crossbench, a teal. That’s a clear government majority, so official committee reports will say what it wants, which is realpolitik at work. But to O’Brien it was a desperate government “very clearly trying to weaponise the parliamentary system to kill the idea that Australia should include nuclear energy as part of its mix”.
Of course, hypocrisy is quite the thing in politics. It turns out the last parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy in 2019, which was chaired by O’Brien, and which supported partial lifting of Australia’s long-standing nuclear energy ban, was even more dominated by the then Coalition government — 5-2 also plus a single teal.
The Coalition under PM Scott Morrison then squibbed it on running a go-nuclear policy at the 2022 elections, which it lost to Labor. Yet, as the opposition, it now expects a Labor government to overturn the nuclear ban that the Coalition introduced in 1998, under the conservative leadership of PM John Howard.
Nothing for O’Brien to melt down over here. But don’t let facts get in the way of a convenient story.
Smug, glib, righteous and on the Right
O’Brien approaches a speaking platform with a radioactive level of smugness and glibness that makes me feel queasy to the core. Perhaps that’s because I’ve been overexposed to him in the past six months as I’ve tracked the emerging nuclear story: three live speeches and seemingly endless videos and television interviews. His own productions. 7.30. Insiders. Four Corners. Sky News on loop.
A committed spruiker, in an Americanised preachy showman kind of way, the ambitious O’Brien is both righteous and on the Right. To paraphrase him: nuclear is vital to our future energy mix and to achieving net zero. Labor’s 100% renewables can’t do it. Blah blah blah. Oh, and we’ll make public the costs and other key details “in due course”.
Last Friday, in contrast to my gut feeling, there was love vibing in the room when O’Brien returned to his people at Australia’s premier pro-nuclear event, the annual conference of the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA). Among this fraternity, he’s Nuclear Ted, the reactor-evangelising federal Liberal from Queensland who’s putting the fission back into the politics of energy in Australia, with a touch of frisson too for this audience.
It’s a pro-nuke constituency that has been in the Australian political wilderness seems like forever, but at least since the 1960s. Now a smooth-talking messiah has emerged, vowing to lead it to its promised land: a nuclear Australia.
If you’ve been thinking it’s mainly renewables-hating, climate-denying National Party political malcontents who are behind the Coalition’s plans — which include prolonging coal and expanding gas generation — think again.
Friends in high places
ANA conferences are where corporate big nuke and its international and local lobbyists meet Australia’s nuclear true believers. Weirdly, however, this gathering of 200 or so delegates has the Australian government as its long-standing principal sponsor. That’s right. The Albanese Labor government is sponsoring a platform for O’Brien, its would-be nuclear energy policy nemesis, to attack the government. And unsurprisingly he keeps coming back to do just that. It’s almost like the government wants O’Brien out there, talking his talk.
The government’s sponsorship comes via its main nuclear advisory agency, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the nation’s only reactor, a research and medical isotopes facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The other event sponsors include the Canadian nuclear engineering powerhouse AtkinsRéalis, and the Australian lobbying outfit SMR Nuclear Technologies.
ANSTO definitely isn’t meant to play politics, challenge policies of the government of the day, or otherwise advocate for nuclear energy. So it’s worth pointing out that the ANA’s president, and the conference’s main host, Dr Mark Ho, is a senior ANSTO scientist in his day job, and the event’s key organiser, Dr John Harries, is former ANSTO, as are many in the ANA orbit.
Beyond the conference, the ANA is increasingly involved in promoting nuclear energy. It and Ho helped organise the Navigating Nuclear forum in May, where O’Brien was a surprise guest speaker after it had been promoted as being “free of politics”.
The Nuclear for Australia campaign thanked Ho for joining its first public event in Lithgow — one of the Coalition’s targeted communities for nuclear reactors — several weeks ago, and Ho was billed as a speaker at an ultra-conservative, anti-renewables, pro-nuclear forum in western Sydney in September where Barnaby Joyce was a pop-up speaker, as previously reported in The Politics, before Harries stepped in to replace him.
I missed Lithgow, but I was at the Navigating Nuclear and western Sydney events. Hence my delicate stomach.
The Coalition is all over this
O’Brien gave a keynote at the ANA’s conference last year too, lambasting the Albanese Labor government then as well. His National Party colleague Dr David Gillespie MP, who spoke at the end of last Friday’s event, has been a regular at these conferences since 2018. Gillespie used the 2022 conference as a springboard for pro-nuclear lobbying through his chairmanship of the Coalition-dominated Parliamentary Friends of Nuclear Industries.
With O’Brien, they played a key role in shaping Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s headland nuclear energy policy announcements in mid-2023. Indeed, O’Brien passed on Dutton’s greetings to last Friday’s conference, and indicated Dutton’s wish to attend a future event “in due course”.
The irony of this phrase choice may have escaped O’Brien in the moment. But he and Dutton are constantly promising the media and the Australian public that they will announce the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy costs and other details “in due course”. Thus far there is no sign of them.
As the day-long conference played out last Friday, it became more and more clear this wasn’t just a political speaker and an audience with a common interest. It’s more like they are collaborators, private sector interests included, working not just for a nuclear Australia but for a global nuclear renaissance.
One of the main industry sponsor presenters, for example, mentioned a recent economic assessment it had undertaken looking at nuclear generation for the NSW Hunter region that “isn’t public”, saying that “hopefully David and Ted can use that going forward”. Very cosy. It’s all very reciprocal and transactional. The kind of thing which Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed master of the deal turned political leader, might applaud.
It’s a fair bet that if Trump returns to the US presidency after next month’s election the Americans will be all over Australia to buy its nuclear energy technologies and services — a number of which were showcased at the 2023 ANA conference, especially Brookfield-owned Westinghouse, already on Dutton’s reactor design shopping list, and Bill Gates’s TerraPower.
The dream merchant
O’Brien, meanwhile, hung around the conference for an extra Q&A session, and actively canvassed for political support via the ANA community, inviting delegates to mobilise their networks ahead of the federal election, and make wide-ranging submissions to the Labor-dominated parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy now underway, without feeling constrained by “Labor’s terms of reference”.
In return, O’Brien is promising the realisation of their nuclear dream. If only the Coalition can return to political power, they’ll get nuclear power, or at least that’s the bait, whatever happens down the years ahead. At one stage in the Q&A he even indicated that a future Coalition government could help promote nuclear energy development ambitions with other nations across the Asia-Pacific.
Standing in the way, however, as O’Brien the reactor evangelist tells it, is a Labor government at odds with the nation’s patriotic spirit, and “Team Australia” to revive a favoured Tony Abbott line:
“This is about Australia … But it is people in this room and beyond, who’ve been doing the heavy lifting for years. It is the intellectual capacity of people in this room and the willingness to be patriots, to put Australia first … It is very much a Team Australia effort of patriots who are prepared to engage and assist along the way.”
Oh dear, I’m feeling queasy all over again.
FOOTNOTE: A key conclusion from delving into O’Brien’s nuclear journey, and that of the Dutton Opposition over the past couple of years, is that they haven’t gone to energy experts to work out if and how nuclear fits into Australia’s energy future. Rather, they’ve gone to nuclear vested interests and true believers, and surprise! surprise! they are all for it! As are fossil-fuel diehards, who know a strategic distraction when they see one.
Making “Australia a Global Nuclear Waste Dump”: Senator Shoebridge on Labor’s Latest Betrayal
This is purely designed to make AUKUS work, to make Australia a global nuclear waste dump, starting with waste from the UK and US nuclear submarines.
surrender of our sovereignty: the surrender of our national interest to these so-called great powerful friends.
It is an incredibly dangerous pathway, but it is one that we can still step aside from.
SYDNEY CRIMINAL LAWYERS, by Paul Gregoire, 15 Oct 2024
In passing the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 on Thursday last week, the Albanese government quietly got a proposition over the line in this country that had been resisted for decades and that was in the passing of laws that facilitate the imposition of nuclear waste dumps.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge stepped out of the chamber to announce this straight after the bill had passed and he decried the fact that both majors shut down debate on the divisive laws and then promptly jammed them through with bipartisan approval.
Of course, the official line is that the nation needs to be able to store its own nuclear waste that will be produced by the eight nuclear-propelled submarines the AUKUS Pillar I provides that the nation will be receiving over the next four decades or so. However, this acquisition is not guaranteed.
And as Shoebridge has made clear in his campaigning against turning this continent into a site for nuclear waste dumps, the framework that’s been enacted provides that the US and the UK will be dumping their nuclear waste at multiple sites here and other nations could join in the future.
AUKUS dumping ground
Defence minister Richard Marles explained on introducing the laws into parliament that they’re the “second legislative step of Australia’s conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”, and the laws are “specifically focused on… ensuring Australia maintains the highest nuclear safety”.
Under the new laws, regulated activities – nuclear facility, submarine and material activities – are regulated to “designated zones”. Two such zones have already been passed into law, one in WA and the other in SA, while a designated zone can further be any other area in Australia that’s chosen.
The bill also establishes NNP (naval nuclear propulsion) facilities, which are purpose-built facilities for constructing AUKUS submarines and they will further serve as radioactive waste management facilities as well. And this will all be taking place within the designated zones.
And besides a last-minute amendment to prevent the disposal of spent fuel from a submarine that is not Australian, Shoebridge warns that the major parties have swung open the door for this nation to take on the low, intermediate and high-level nuclear waste of the US and the UK going back years.
Opening the floodgates
As the senator explained in an interview in April, despite the US and the UK having nuclear industries going back half a century, neither of them have come up with a permanent solution for their high-grade military nuclear waste. Indeed, the US has only managed this for their intermediate range.
In addressing the 53rd weekly protest for Palestine and now Lebanon on Gadigal land in Sydney last weekend, Shoebridge further warned that the tone of the federal Liberal opposition has become ever more warlike of late, in terms of its support for Israel, which is ensuring Labor slides to the right.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Greens Senator David Shoebridge about his insistence that the nation is not yet bound to AUKUS, although it’s getting quite close, as well as the implications of the imposition of nuclear waste dumps and his warning about the Coalition’s new low in war posturing…………………………..
Senator Shoebridge:
What we saw was Albanese, Labor and the Dutton Coalition join up to do what’s known in parliamentary terms as a guillotine: to just ram this through parliament without any debate. And this is after a year of community resistance.
This is purely designed to make AUKUS work, to make Australia a global nuclear waste dump, starting with waste from the UK and US nuclear submarines.
This is going to be arriving in a town or city near you, in the next few months and years because of this legislation they rammed through.
In the next few years, we’re going to be receiving nuclear waste from visiting US nuclear submarines, which can do repairs, starting first at Garden Island off the coast of Fremantle, but also, at Osborne Naval Facility, just south of the Adelaide CBD.
This law greenlights working on those nuclear submarines at both of those facilities and then receiving and storing waste.
But it also means taking waste from those decommissioned UK and US submarines, and they’ve each got dozens and dozens of old submarines rusting away.
What the Albanese government has done – and they’ve held Peter Dutton’s hand on this journey all the way through – is work around decades and decades of First Nations resistance to nuclear waste dumps and ram this legislation through under the shadow of AUKUS.
I can tell you now, there are people inside Defence, and there are people inside Labor and the Coalition, who desperately want to turn nuclear waste dumps into broader civilian waste dumps and really use this to open up the nuclear industry across this country.
It has been deceitful from day one. When we pointed out last year that the legislation, as initially drafted, allows for the importation of any nuclear waste, even the high-level waste, which is the equivalent of weapons-grade uranium from the UK and US subs, we were attacked by defence minister Marles.
The minister called it a “Green conspiracy” when we pointed out that the law provided that. We won that argument. He had to concede that the bill, as it was drafted, allowed for any nuclear waste and that is partly why we got that amendment up to at least exclude one form of nuclear waste: nuclear fuel.
But from day one it has been deceitful. From day one it has been a stalking horse, using the cover of AUKUS to literally open up this country for the dumping of a global nuclear waste stream.
As more people find out about what this is, people are getting angrier and angrier, but we need to convert that into political mobilisation to undo this.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. If we get to a dystopian future, where we start receiving thousands of tonnes of other countries’ nuclear waste, there will be no path back from that. They will never accept that waste back.
That’s the kind of cruel bargain that the Albanese government is opening up.
I say this especially for First Nations peoples, who have been protecting this continent for tens of thousands of years. This is a particularly cruel bargain that the Albanese government is opening up.
I remain incredibly hopeful that the Australia public are increasingly seeing this for what it is.
Each time political support for AUKUS is tested, it falls and falls. And that is because people can see that we have a political class in both the Labor Party and the Coalition, who are willing to sell out our national interest – poison our land, poison our water – because they’re so keen to follow the US lead and be seen as a sub-imperial power, as a deputy sheriff, they can rely upon.
This latest piece of legislation, that opens up this country to the dumping of US and UK nuclear waste, is just the most recent example of that surrender of our sovereignty: the surrender of our national interest to these so-called great powerful friends.
It is an incredibly dangerous pathway, but it is one that we can still step aside from. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/making-australia-a-global-nuclear-waste-dump-senator-shoebridge-on-labors-latest-betrayal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF72VJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcYCk8aMc9ghXrB4wqCjiVYrmvoQtdGFca2r7nnmWrxwp8Zl17RummiVUw_aem_6KEWHWbagHvCNwR1mF-lWQ
Australia’s democracy trashed, as Labor government + Liberal opposition join forces to push AUKUS bills through
15 Oct 24, On Thurs 10th the ALP Gov & Coalition jointly forced a Senate vote on two AUKUS Bills without allowing any debate and jointly voted down all proposed amendments (see below) – see the vote at Senate Hansard extract at p.28-29 of this doc https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
16 x Senators voted No:
Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J.
36 x Labor & Liberal & National Senators voted Yes to AUKUS Bills.
see Australian Greens Senator David Shoebridge Media Release on 11th Oct 2024 on nuclear waste aspects:
Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal | Australian Greens
All proposed Amendments to the AUKUS Bills were voted down by the ALP & the Coalition.
a set of Amendments by Greens Senator Shoebridge, a set by Ind Senator Thorpe, a set by Ind Senator Pocock, and a set by Senator Lambie, were voted down as four groups of amendments – see a Senate Hansard extract from p.40 to p.58 of doc: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/28068/toc_pdf/Senate_2024_10_10.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Premier vows to hold vote on Coalition nuclear power plan ahead of federal election
Queensland state law forbids the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other facilities under the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act.
LNP leader David Crisafulli, who is on track to lead the opposition to power, stands firmly against the proposal.
Fraser Barton, Oct 15, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/premier-vows-to-hold-vote-on-coalition-nuclear-power-plan-ahead-of-federal-election/
Queenslanders will be asked to vote in a plebiscite on nuclear energy at the next federal election if Labor Premier Steven Miles is re-elected.
The premier believes a separate vote on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposals can be held at the same time as the federal poll.
“I’ve said I’ll comply with the law,” the premier told reporters alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday.
“The law bans nuclear in Queensland but also requires the minister to hold a plebiscite as soon as they reasonably believe that the Australian government intends to build a nuclear reactor.
“Peter Dutton said the first step to get nuclear reactors in Queensland is to elect David Crisafulli – they were his words – and that means that the first step to blocking Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear reactors is to elect me in October.”
Albanese labelled the federal coalition’s nuclear energy goals a “fantasy”.
“They don’t have a proper plan here, and it’s no wonder that they should be held to account for it,” he said.
Dutton has promised to build seven nuclear plants across Australia if the coalition wins next year’s federal election.
Dutton has previously vowed to override states who refuse to adopt the energy plan.
But Queensland state law forbids the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other facilities under the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act.
LNP leader David Crisafulli, who is on track to lead the opposition to power, stands firmly against the proposal.
Political analyst John Mickel said Labor would use nuclear’s high costs and dependency on water to woo regional voters, if the plebiscite goes ahead.
“What Labor would be trying to do there is bring that issue to the fore,” he told AAP.
Plans to build nuclear plants could cost up to $600 billion and the coalition said nuclear reactors could be online by 2037.
Queensland premier will hold plebiscite on nuclear power if he wins state election
Exclusive: Steven Miles says law requires a referendum be called if the commonwealth is likely to build a ‘prohibited nuclear facility’ in the state
Andrew Messenger and Graham Readfearn, Mon 14 Oct 2024
Steven Miles will hold a state plebiscite on Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plans if he wins the 26 October poll, a move that could polarise the electorate in the Coalition’s strongest state at the next federal election.
The Queensland premier said he had received legal advice on the nuclear issue and raised the possibility of initiating a plebiscite on the same day as the federal election.
“Depending on how things play out, you could even hold that plebiscite on the same day as the federal election, to save people going to the polls twice,” Miles said in an exclusive interview with Guardian Australia.
The federal opposition leader, Peter Dutton, will take a plan for seven Commonwealth-owned nuclear power stations to the next election. That includes two in Queensland, replacing existing coal plants at Callide and Tarong.
But an obscure provision in Queensland’s 17-year-old Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 may stand in the way. The act bans granting a grid connection, development application or generating authority to any nuclear facility.
It also requires the minister call a plebiscite if “satisfied the government of the commonwealth has taken, or is likely to, take any step supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland”.
The state opposition leader, David Crisafulli, has repeatedly ruled out changes to the law, most recently at a joint press conference with Dutton this month……………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/14/queensland-premier-will-hold-plebiscite-on-nuclear-power-if-he-wins-state-election
Two Peter Dutton policies may swing Teals to Labor in a minority government
Michael West Media by Michael Pascoe | Oct 14, 2024
The scenario: a minority government after the next election, as various polls forecast.
The question: in a close-run thing, to whom would the “Teals” give the keys to the Lodge?
The hypothesis: there are two Dutton policies that should force the genuine independents to select Albanese as Prime Minister.
The perversity: neither of those policies could be expected to appeal much to voters who weren’t already in the LNP camp.
May election likely
Slipping by without much attention last week was the government changing Budget Night to March 25, effectively confirming the early May election that has always been most likely. So seven months to win any hearts and minds that are not already committed.
The makeup of the crossbench will be different. Not all the community independents – to give Teals their official name – from the Class of ’22 may be returned (for starters, vale the scratched seat of North Sydney and, therefore, Kylea Tink) and there could be newbies. From here, though, it still looks likely that Teals will have the final say on who forms government. More on that later.
Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.
The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.
The nuclear “concept” of a plan
Dutton’s “concept of a plan” to build multiple nuclear reactors somewhere between a distant tomorrow and eternity – an excuse for extending fossil fuel burning and reducing investment in renewables – won’t and can’t wash with any Teal genuinely concerned about climate policy.
Enter stage right the two key LNP policies that should make it impossible for Teals to give Dutton the nod: nuclear power and housing.
The key common issues of the Teal wave in 2022 were climate, integrity, gender, and not being Scott Morrison, all based on a pledge of listening to and reflecting their communities’ concerns.
As Phil Coorey reported in the AFR ($):
“If they’re not going to release the detail, we’ll do it for them,” a government member said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“The terms of reference include an examination of how soon a nuclear power plant could be operational; the cost of building and maintaining them, the storage and transportation of fuel and waste; the feasibility of using existing coal-fired power station sites and their power lines; federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; and the impact of power prices.”
Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit.
With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.
Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.
Generally forgotten is that we had a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power only five years ago, chaired by the LNP’s Ted O’Brien, now the shadow energy spokesman tasked with selling Dutton’s nuclear gambit.
With the Coalition dominating that inquiry, the most O’Brien could come up with was that “nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, not that we should go for it.
Then, like now, O’Brien was hoping small modular reactors might become a thing and other new large reactor technologies could be the economical go.
The only certainty about the LNP’s energy/climate policy is that it would delay efforts to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. With climate denial strong in the party, the procrastinator’s golden rule rules: Put off to tomorrow what you don’t have to do today because you might get away with not doing it tomorrow.
There is no way Teals, in conscience, could choose such a policy. Climate 2000’s Simon Holmes à Court doesn’t call the Teals’ shots, but they couldn’t expect his support if they went with the deniers and sceptics………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The minority government scenario?
The post-election negotiations will test the integrity of cross-bench members. The Teals of Liberal heritage – most obviously Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Kate Chaney in Curtin – might have to hold their noses to appoint a Labor government, but they would forfeit all personal credibility if they empowered fraudulent nuclear and housing policies.
The others – Monique Ryan, Zali Steggall, Helen Haines, Zoe Daniel, Sophie Scamps and, possibly post-May, Nicolette Boele in Bradfield – have their own professed standards to live up to. If they do, they won’t be empowering a minority LNP government.
We may also assume that Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie ($) and Andrew Gee (if he is returned in Calare after quitting the Nationals over the Voice referendum) go LNP, while the Greens and Andrew Wilkie prefer Labor.
The self-declared opposite of a Teal, the former Liberal Dai Le ($) in the former Labor seat of Fowler, has never pledged herself on climate or anything else for that matter, winning by being an involved local and not the parachuted-in Labor candidate, Kristina Keneally.
Her gaffe in ignorantly suggesting the Lucas Heights research facility could generate electricity indicates she would not have a problem with the Dutton nuclear fantasy – unless the parliamentary inquiry convinces her otherwise. https://michaelwest.com.au/peter-duttons-policies-may-swing-teals-to-labor-in-election/
Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal
The Bill immediately creates two nuclear dump ‘zones’, one off the coast of Perth and the other at Port Adelaide, without any community consultation or local support.
The Albanese Government today teamed up with Peter Dutton’s Coalition to push through a controversial AUKUS Bill that will allow the dumping of high-level naval nuclear waste anywhere in Australia.
The Albanese Government, in alliance with the Coalition, rammed the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill through the Senate today without debate.
The Bill also created a new naval nuclear regulator as part of the AUKUS agreement with the UK and US on nuclear submarines. It initially allowed for all UK and US nuclear submarine waste to be dumped in Australia until the Albanese Government sheepishly amended it, due to growing public opposition, to prevent the dumping of UK or US ‘spent nuclear fuel’.
However, the amendments still allow the dumping of US and UK intermediate-level waste and other high-level nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines. The Greens moved amendments this afternoon that explicitly prevented this, and the major parties voted against these amendments and others.
The Bill immediately creates two nuclear dump ‘zones’, one off the coast of Perth and the other at Port Adelaide, without any community consultation or local support.
The Bill also allows nuclear dump zones to be declared anywhere in Australia that the Defence Minister chooses with the flick of their pen, again without any consent from local communities or First Nations traditional owners.
Senator David Shoebridge, Greens Spokesperson for Defence, said: “Albanese and Dutton have teamed up today to push this AUKUS nuclear waste legislation through the Senate without debate.”
“Today’s actions see both Labor and the Coalition joining hands to ram through legislation that will let the UK and US dump their naval nuclear waste in Australia.”
“The Albanese Labor Government initially tried to sneak through a law that would allow the UK and US to dump all types of nuclear waste in Australia. The Greens called the Government out on this, and then people around Australia pushed back.
“Even with last-minute Labor amendments, this legislation still allows the dumping of US and UK nuclear waste in Australia. Labor’s amendments only prohibit the US and UK dumping ‘spent nuclear fuel’ from their submarines in Australia, but do not prohibit any other highly irradiated UK and US nuclear waste.
“This legislation green-lights dumping of all Australian naval nuclear waste anywhere in Australia. To be clear, exposure to even intermediate-level waste is lethal to humans, and the risk lasts for hundreds of years.
“Everyone can see AUKUS is sinking, the question is now becoming how much environmental and financial damage it will do before it hits rock bottom,” Senator Shoebridge said.
John Hewson – The opposition leader’s nuclear bullshit
But the basic question that never seems to be asked is whether the electricity sector is being run in the interests of electricity consumers or the nuclear industry. This needs to be asked in the Australian context, in relation to Dutton’s persistence with his nuclear option against the massive and still-mounting global evidence of its cost and time delay disadvantages, and the hollowness of his commitments to cheaper electricity.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/10/12/the-opposition-leaders-nuclear-bullsh, 12 Oct 24, John Hewson is a professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and former Liberal opposition leader.
In a full mimicry of Donald Trump, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s reality is how he claims it to be, in complete disregard for the facts. So it is with his stance on nuclear energy. He simply asserts his nuclear power will deliver cheaper electricity to Australian households, and that nuclear is the only pathway to net zero by 2050. In a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia last month he delivered his rationale: line after line of bullshit.
Dutton builds much of his case for nuclear on what he claims are the very cheap electricity prices in the Canadian province of Ontario, where nuclear accounts for about half of the energy mix. However, he ignores the fact the domestic supplier, Ontario Power Generation, is effectively a basket case, with a very sorry financial history that has been catalogued by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
In 1998, seven of public utility Ontario Hydro’s nuclear reactors were unexpectedly forced to shut down due to safety concerns. All of these reactors were inoperable for more than five years – two were still inactive as late as 2017, according to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
By the following year, Ontario Hydro was effectively bankrupt, and split into five companies. The nuclear stations went to OPG, while some $20 billion of the stranded nuclear debt was transferred to the Ontario Financial Corporation, with the paydown lasting for more than a decade.
The province had to boost its dirty coal plants’ output by 120 per cent to keep the lights on – an outcome that would be most pleasing to Dutton’s important donors.
OPG’s electricity prices rose about 60 per cent between 2002 and 2016, in order to pay for nuclear power – including restarting the five reactors that had been shut down. In September 2016, OPG told the Ontario Energy Board it needed to increase its nuclear power prices by more than 10 per cent a year for the next decade. The premier of Ontario later directed OPG to take on billions of dollars of additional debt to ensure electricity price increases over subsequent years would not exceed the rate of inflation.
It is worth noting that in the start-up phase, the relatively new Darlington Nuclear Generating Station on the north shore of Lake Ontario has suffered from technical problems, even with proven technology, which have delayed it becoming fully operational. It should be clear there are very few givens in adopting these technologies, as evidenced with most projects across the globe, whereas Dutton is inclined to assume otherwise.
Dutton and O’Brien have attempted to create the impression that Australia is being left behind in a world rushing to adopt and expand nuclear power. This is in doubt, but it is certainly true that there is a major push to decommission existing nuclear power plants.
It is also important to learn from the cost blowouts of the Darlington project. The project was initiated in 1973 but not started until roughly a decade later. Ontario Hydro estimated a cost of C$7.4 billion when construction began (though earlier projections were lower). Costs more than doubled from here, an important element of which was the interest cost on the project debt over and above the expanding costs from delays in construction scheduling and in the build itself, which is often ignored in discussions. Other reasons for the cost blowout included the need to meet regulatory changes and updates to Ontario Hydro’s financial policies, as well as necessary design tweaks during construction. All of which seem to be characteristic of nuclear projects.
The overruns prompted more questions about whether OPG would go bankrupt again if the Darlington rebuild continued to go over budget and demand for electricity continued to fall. Why weren’t costs cut, or the Darlington rebuild cancelled, and, importantly, why didn’t they start buying more cheap water power from neighbouring Quebec, using existing transmission lines?
But the basic question that never seems to be asked is whether the electricity sector is being run in the interests of electricity consumers or the nuclear industry. This needs to be asked in the Australian context, in relation to Dutton’s persistence with his nuclear option against the massive and still-mounting global evidence of its cost and time delay disadvantages, and the hollowness of his commitments to cheaper electricity.
It is also worth noting that Canada established Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Crown corporation, not as a generator but as the primary research and development agency in the field of nuclear energy. As such, it is responsible for design, engineering, marketing and servicing of the country’s CANDU reactors, and aims to make CANDU “the long-term competitive electricity supply system”. This is a for-profit operation. Does the Coalition aim to replicate this sort of entity?
Peter Dutton and his shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, have sought to challenge the authority of CSIRO’s GenCost report on these cost disadvantages. A United States study has suggested the CSIRO estimates were conservative, putting the cost at $12,351 a kilowatt, compared with GenCost’s $8446/kW. Similarly, a recent report on the ABC’s Four Corners reviewing the US experience with the Plant Vogtle project in Georgia – which is also often cited by the Dutton team, in support of their policy proposal, as delivering cheaper electricity – revealed consumer dissatisfaction as electricity prices have risen sharply. And Bill Gates’s new Kemmerer project in Wyoming has encountered troubles.
While there are many gaps still in Dutton’s advocacy for us to adopt nuclear energy, one of the most important is his vagueness about the technology to be adopted – he has vacillated from the demonstrated, expensive large reactors to the commercially as yet unproven small modular reactors (SMRs). He would have us believe that by the time we need to build these, the proven technologies will be available. This delay may prevent him from supplying adequate cost estimates before the next election. It’s notable that the only SMR project to receive approval by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was abandoned recently because of rising costs, even after the Department of Energy had pledged some US$500 million in grants.
Although we probably have the world’s largest deposits of uranium, we don’t have an enrichment industry. This also raises another serious question for the opposition to answer: where will the fuel for the reactors come from? Are they advocating that we also launch a nuclear enrichment industry? Is this also part of their AUKUS dream?
There are also important issues to be addressed in relation to the disposal of the waste from the reactors. The United Kingdom is currently demonstrating just how significant a challenge this can become.
Western Australia Statement: Nuclear is No Climate Solution
| SIGN THE STATEMENT Please take action to protect WA from the threat of nuclear power by signing the statement “Nuclear is No Climate Solution.” Please help grow the support to stop Dutton’s nuclear power push in the West. |
| Unlike other states WA does not have a prohibition on nuclear power. With the Federal election increasingly uncertain we face a very real risk of a Federal Coalition advancing nuclear power in WA. We are pushing the State government to legislate a prohibition as the best legal protection against a Federal Coalition who seek to impose nuclear power in WA and we need your help to get the WA government to act. |
Peter Dutton’s proposal for WA is to build Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) at the Muja Coal fired power station in Collie which is due to be closed in 2027. There are new developments in the region for hydrogen power steel recycling, wind farms and battery storage all feeding into the South West grid.
The irresponsible and reckless nuclear proposal for Collie undermines and derails climate action, creates uncertainty for renewable energy investors and locks in gas and fossil fuels for longer. We cannot underestimate how serious Peter Dutton is on nuclear power and we do not have time to delay climate action.
You can download a sign on sheet to collect signatures and send back to us Nuclear Free WA c/o CCWA PO Box 883, West Perth, WA 6872.
Thanks so much for helping grow the momentum to stop nuclear power in WA.
Mia Pepper
Nuclear Free WA Committee Member
One Horrible Year on from October 7 2023, a Bleak Reflection.
larryjhs September 27, 2024, https://webstylus.net/2024/09/27/a-bleak-year/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF1TM9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHesplRcX1423JwSpof6CAkT303FkdzIX_bEcTdRO5SkXXOkPsj9hdRcULg_aem_XDLROjlruTcdEBP9ZqlzlQ—
The past year since Hamas’ attack has been traumatic for the Australian Jewish community locally and internationally. The fate of hostages appears to in the hands of Netanyahu, his generals, and extremists, who despite public outrage, has continued to prosecute an unwinnable war. It is now clear that that Hamas has made numerous offers for a prisoner exchange and ceasefire, but these have been deliberately refused with a preference for war at all costs by the Israeli government. Israeli Jews who protest are now arrested and beaten up. This includes hostage members’ families and protesting members of the Israeli establishment. The forces of anti-democratic extreme nationalism and militarism have taken over the country, unimpeded. Sadly, this mentality appears to be held by some Jews locally.
This war against the Palestinian people has now been extended to the West Bank and into Lebanon against Hezbollah for firing rockets. For liberal Zionists, the sum total of such a military strategy is a betrayal of what they thought was possible, to negotiate a peaceful political settlement for two peoples, in two states. Zionism as an ideal now appears bereft of a moral foundation and liberal Zionists are flailing. For non-Zionists and anti-Zionist Jews, it is confirmation of their worst fears about the seemingly inevitable drift of Zionism to extremism of the worst sort.
Some now call what is going on genocide, others reject the term as offensive, and in fact, it is up to the Internal Court of Justice to make the final ruling. But with the ongoing evidence of incitement to genocide in the Israeli media, we should call a spade a spade. This is a situation where some Israeli Jews are calling for, or taking part in war crimes.
The violence in real time – aided by an almost unimpeded flow of American arms is like nothing we have seen before, and we have rapidly entered into the world of science fiction with remote explosions of pagers and other devices.
There is always the same excuse for such violence and its “collateral” damage – Hamas or Hezbollah are our eternal enemies and the fight is existential. The only solution is military eradication. Sadly, this is the script that has been in use for decades, but it has worn thin. This violence is an attempt to permanently destroy anything that amounts to independent Palestinian life. The Israel State rejects the existence of an independent Palestine. But people’s wars – which is what the revolt in Gaza is about – are not won by military force, as learned in Algeria and Vietnam.
Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, far beyond Hamas’ own act on October 7. Israeli soldiers have been filmed rejoicing in destruction and using Palestinians as human shields. Hospitals and schools and universities have been destroyed and journalists killed. Aljazeerah is closed down. Thousands are arrested for unspecified crimes. Starvation is taking place. This is not an ordinary war for legitimate defence. It is something far, far worse. For Palestinians and their supporters, this is considered to be a continuation of what went on in 1948 and thereafter, but this time, the world sees the brutality on its screens.
This brutality helps to explain why the atrocity against Jews and foreign workers on October 7 is now considered by many on the left as of secondary importance, when it has become an obsession among Jews, used to reinforce the sense of eternal victimhood. It also helps to explain the simplistic identification by some with Hamas’ actions and its war machine as a justified form of resistance “by any means possible”, when the result has been the superior and brutal murder conducted by Israel. It also helps to explain why so many have doubted accounts of sex crimes and atrocities by Hamas, when Israel manipulated unclear information from the very beginning. In war, truth is the first casualty.
Israel/Palestine brings together issues of war and peace, identity, and great power politics as a social media event. It has become a focus for culture and political wars that particularly affect the thinking of alienated young people in a world that appears to be falling apart under the pressure of climate change, political corruption, and technological abuse.
The brutality of Israel’s assault also helps to explain how the uncritical acceptance of formerly specialist academic theories about colonialism, imperialism, and racism, have found root in many corners of the left internationally, angered by the lack of action by the US and others to stop the carnage. Palestine has become the cause celebre even a surrogate for all international injustice even though other brutal regional wars and massacres also call for attention. The difference is of course, that Israel has claimed to be acting as a democracy and in the interests of the West. At times of course, this anger over Israel has at times segued into explicitly conspiratorial antisemitism, though this is abhorrent to responsible pro-Palestine advocates.
In fact, the idea that only the colonized, not the colonialist has any rights is totally ahistorical. Theories should not be set in stone and exclude other insights. In this case, the current take on Israel as a colony reflects theoretical narrowness and the absence of deep knowledge or particular empathy for the peculiar and awful historical circumstances that brought about migration of so many Jews to historical Palestine, as Zionists of one sort or other, or desperate refugees. Once a colony, damned as a colony for ever, including its children. This is determinism. It has got to a point that the idea of a “conflict” is rejected, since the situation is seen as a pure invasion. The Jews of modernity are thus regarded as wholly outside interlopers to an imagined Palestine, when in fact Palestine was always multicultural, subject to migration forces and domination by great powers. I’ve thus got a real concern that Palestinian nationalism, for all its talk of future equality, shares a similar thread of intolerance of difference as the Zionist project. In fact, as the great Palestinian historian and activity Rashid Khalidi said in his The Hundred Years War on Palestine “[T]here are now two peoples in Palestine, irrespective of how they came into being, and the conflict between them cannot be resolved as long as the national existence of each is denied by the other.”
But such subtlety now appears to be rejected by many on the left in Australia with dogmatic calls for particular forms of future arrangements that smack of an antidemocratic form of thought and political control, and are devoid of any understanding of the reality of peacemaking in conflict zones, whatever the cause. The result, as we all know, has even been a political nightmare even in Australia as accusations are made about the direct complicity of any number of institutions for any connection to Israel and politicians are accused of heinous crimes well out of their direct control. Many Jews feel unsafe whether or not the threat is real. But as a number of commentators have said, there should be no confusion between the perception of unsafety because of political criticism that upsets a privileged comfort zone and blindness or indifference to the plight of others (as distinct from real antisemitism), and the truly and physically unsafe position of Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
Of course, the intolerance shown by elements of the left to anything identified as “Zionist” deserves condemnation because it leads to stereotypes and oversimplification. Consequently, I have greatly regretted the lack of support on the left in Australia for the activist Israeli Jewish left which while a minority in the Israel, has taken on the hard task of standing up for Palestine. This criticism extends to elements of the anti-Zionist Jewish left who appear bereft of any empathy for 50% of the world’s Jews. This lack of support may be due to position that this amounts to “legitimatization” of Jewish -Israeli domination over that of oppressed of Palestinians. I think this is a wrong position to take. Conflict resolution needs people of goodwill from all sides, whatever the shape of final political arrangements, which I hope are based on principles of full and equal rights for all, the end to the occupation and the apartheid system and restorative justice for Palestinians. Huge political & psychological concessions are required by both sides, something hardliners refuse to admit at both ends.
Of course, actions of major Australian Jewish organisations, aligned to dominant political interests in acting as echoes for hasbarah and attacking Israel’s critics has been destructive. Their and others’ attack on universities for alleged and widespread antisemitism is also flawed, exaggerated, highly partisan, and a threat to academic freedom. Crying wolf over antisemitism is destructive to the interests of free political speech. Likewise, uninformed sloganeering, exaggerations and barbs on both sides, and attacks by Zionist or leftist thugs do nothing to progress social cohesion. They detract from political efforts to alter Australian foreign policy to take a strong stand against the Israeli state.
Sadly, I may be wrong in all this and we will be stuck with unceasing violence by the military state, a largely compliant population, continuing repression of Palestians and violent blowback while the world stands by. The US will be constrained by internal weakness to do any thing, and there will be an increased fracture between Israel and a fair proportion of world Jewry, while an unrepentant and fanatical faction pours in money and support and exerts political pressure. Bleak Bleak Bleak.
(edited a bit for clarification)
[The image is “Exterminating the cockroach” Yosi Even Kama came up with these posters about the fascist state in 2010 as part of an art project about how things would be in 2023]
Australia’s evolving nuclear posture: avoiding a fait accompli (Part 1 of 2)
Pearls and Irritations, By Vince Scappatura, Oct 12, 2024
A monumental transformation: There has been a great deal of public criticism of Australia’s decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) via the AUKUS security partnership. The criticism has been both broad and deep, spanning political and industrial challenges, budgetary consequences, safety and environmental concerns, strategic risks, and the erosion of national sovereignty.
While these are all worthy issues to bring to the fore of the public debate, one set of issues that have not received nearly as much attention are the ways in which AUKUS implicates Australia in US nuclear war planning.
From one perspective this is understandable given AUKUS does not involve plans for Australia to acquire nuclear-armed submarines or to station US nuclear weapons on Australian soil. However, when viewed from a wider perspective, AUKUS epitomises Australia’s geostrategic transformation and evolving nuclear posture within the US alliance.
The significance of this transformation is reflected in the fact that Australia will soon become ‘the only ally in the world to host and support military operations by forward-deployed US strategic bombers and SSN attack submarines’. This comes in addition to hosting mature US expeditionary Marine capabilities and a more recent rotational presence of US Army personnel and permanent associated support infrastructure.
Perhaps more significant than providing a ‘vast military launchpad’ for multiple forms of US power projection is the developing role of the ADF to seamlessly integrate with American military forces and to provide what is approaching full-spectrum support operations, including for nuclear missions.
AUKUS and nuclear war
Although the focus of AUKUS ‘pillar one’ is the acquisition by Australia of nuclear-powered, but conventionally-armed submarines, there are in fact several nuclear war planning dimensions to the broader security partnership.
The Australian government refuses to publicly broach the questions of how, where and against whom Australia’s future SSN force might be expected to operate both in peacetime and in the event of conflict. …………………………………………….
It would not be surprising if all of these contingencies are perceived by Beijing as posing an existential threat, particularly as China’s nuclear submarine deterrent continues to develop into an assured second-strike capability…………………………………………………………………
Australia’s evolving nuclear posture
AUKUS is more than just an international arms agreement. By Scott Morrison’s admission the political framework is intended to secure a ‘forever partnership’ and a ‘forever responsibility’ between Australia and the United States. The unprecedented scale, cost, time frame and interdependence generated by the singular AUKUS deal clearly signals a decision to lock Australia into America’s distinctive military strategy for containing China into the future.
A key objective of America’s strategy is to achieve seamless high-end defence integration with its global network of allies and partners. While obstacles to full realisation remain, Canberra’s embrace of ‘integrated deterrence’ is already transforming Australia into both a critical base of operations and provider of full-spectrum support for US force projection into the region. It is also leading to the development of a new and unprecedented role for the ADF in support of US nuclear operations.
………………………………………………………………………………………. Avoiding a fait accompli
The situation emerging is one of enduring high-level tactical and institutional integration between the defence forces of Australia and the United States, creating the conditions for extreme political pressure and expectations from Washington of Australian support for any future US war with China……………………………………………………………..
The time to put a halt to any plans for expanding Australia’s nuclear posture is now. If no public pressure is forthcoming the Australian government is likely, in time, to move forward with precommitments to support US nuclear operations behind closed doors, and if presented to the public at all, will be done so as a fait accompli, as was the case with AUKUS, the forward-deployment of B-52 bombers and the US Force Posture Initiatives generally. https://johnmenadue.com/australias-evolving-nuclear-posture-avoiding-a-fait-accompli-part-1-of-2/
Electrical Trades Union questions Australia’s billion-dollar nuclear price tag
09 October, 2024, BY Aaliyah Rogan, https://mining.com.au/etu-questions-australias-billion-dollar-nuclear-price-tag/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF1SuRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZuZOLhjX1n0h3g6EQL1ux1wMtrzMt09-VLVDSaM8enMFX4RZ8Fu8yOx0w_aem_1ulz0sgMMWof53yKtuqOUQ
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is pushing back against the Coalition’s proposal to build nuclear reactors in a new advertising campaign that queries the project’s price tag, and flags concerns it will destroy valuable job opportunities.
In mid-June 2024, Opposition leader Peter Dutton revealed the opposition’s plans to build several nuclear power plants that will begin rolling out in 2035 if the party wins the upcoming election.
Dutton’s plan involves reactors being built on the sites of end-of-life coal-fired power stations at locations including Gippsland in Victoria, Gladstone in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia, Collie in Western Australia, and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales.
Following Dutton’s proposal, the Smart Energy Council conducted a detailedanalysisusing CSIRO’s latest GenCost report and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan, which revealed the nuclear reactors will cost between $116 billion and $600 billion.
ETU National Secretary Michael Wright says the ad was prompted by electrical workers’ concerns that an abrupt shift towards nuclear energy will “rob the industry of a jobs and skills boom”.
“Renewables and batteries in Australia are producing so much low-cost energy we are on track to hit climate targets,” Wright says.
“This will create nearly 100,000 more jobs for electricians by 2050 — so many that we need to rewire our training system to skill up enough people.
“We are very concerned that a rapid change in direction to high-cost nuclear with decades-long timelines would derail this momentum and rob the next generation of electrical workers of renewable transition opportunities.”
Wright adds that people have the right to ask questions about Dutton’s nuclear plans, about the costs, the length of time, and why Australia needs nuclear energy when batteries and low-cost renewables are gathering momentum in a short period of time.
“People should get to form their views with the same information that electrical workers, energy investors, and businesses in the industry have access to,” he says.
“These insiders have reached a consensus view that nuclear is not right for Australia.
“People are questioning the financial cost of nuclear for relatively little output that won’t come online until the middle of the century. We think most people would prefer to see renewables and batteries bring down power bills and hit climate targets much sooner than that.”
ETU’s video advertisement will be launching initially for catch-up viewers across key areas of Queensland exposed to plans for nuclear energy, before being launched in other areas ahead of the 2025 federal election.
The ad will air on 7plus, 9Now, 10Play, SBS ON Demand, FoxtelGo, Kayo, Tubi, and Binge, as well as Youtube and Meta properties.
The Electrical Trades Union is an Australian trade union that is a division of the Communications, Electrical, and Plumbing Union. It is considered the largest of the three divisions.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 