Gas before nuclear ‘thought bubble’ as coal reign ends
Yahoo/Finance! Jack Gramenz, Tue 9 July 2024
Federal opposition plans to roll out nuclear energy have been dismissed as a thought bubble as the nation races to replace coal power.
Alternatives to the fossil fuel – which still powers much of the grid in NSW, Victoria and Queensland – are being rapidly rolled out with coal’s reign “swiftly ending,” according to electricity company bosses.
Proposals to increase natural gas supplies for the nation’s most populous state are being assessed and welcomed as renewable projects come online, NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe says.
“We don’t want to see price spikes and we don’t want to see uncertainty for industry,” she told a Committee for Economic Development of Australia event on Tuesday………………….
“More and more renewable energy is entering the system, but it’s always happening more slowly than we would like,” Ms Sharpe said.
The state Labor minister said she was “unimpressed” by a proposal from the federal coalition to roll out nuclear power stations.
The plan posed too many important but unanswered questions and threatened to smash a hole in the certainty provided by the state’s energy strategy, she said.
“NSW will not be risking our future economic prosperity for a policy thought bubble designed to play politics,” Ms Sharpe said……………………..
The chief executive of Australia’s largest energy generator and greenhouse-gas emitter reaffirmed nuclear power was not part of the company’s future.
AGL’s Damien Nicks told the same event the electricity supplier focused on renewable generation and storage.
“AGL’s generation portfolio will look completely different by 2035, when we’re no longer generating electricity from coal,” he said……………
The transmission network operator is building 2500km of new lines to carry an expected 17-gigawatt surge in renewable generation as more projects enter the grid.
Ms Sharpe on Tuesday announced the inaugural chair and seven commissioners for the state’s Net Zero Commission……. https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/gas-nuclear-thought-bubble-net-044223314.html
Too uncertain, too slow: funds rule out financing Dutton nuclear plan
The investment bosses of half a dozen funds also agreed there was not enough policy certainty to justify any serious consideration of nuclear energy investments.
In a public consultation paper released in May, the groups proposed excluding nuclear power as a sustainable investment option under the taxonomy as its development is currently illegal in Australia.
AFR, Hannah Wootton 7 July 24
Investment chiefs from the country’s biggest superannuation funds will not bankroll Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan, despite strong appetite for other energy transition assets and a shortage of domestic investment opportunities.
Aware Super CIO Damian Graham said the production timelines on nuclear were too long to help meet the fund’s own net-zero targets. His counterpart at UniSuper, John Pearce, said nuclear investments would not make money for members fast enough, while Cbus ruled it out completely.
The investment bosses of half a dozen funds also agreed there was not enough policy certainty to justify any serious consideration of nuclear energy investments.
Broader appetite for private investment in nuclear has been low, with Mr Dutton conceding his scheme will need to be publicly funded despite the Liberal Party’s historic dislike of state-owned energy.
Funds’ dismissal of nuclear also comes as they pour billions of dollars into renewables, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers calls on the $3.6 trillion sector to deploy some of its ever-growing asset pool into “nation building” areas like the energy transition.
“The main reason [we won’t] is the payback time is way too long for us – we’re talking decades, not just years,” Mr Pearce said on possible investments in nuclear.
“We know that nuclear is proven, scalable technology, and you’ve got your ESG considerations as well as economic, but from that economic side, it just doesn’t stack up [as an investment] for a super fund for us.”
Cbus’ CIO Brett Chatfield said: “We don’t see nuclear as a part of the energy transition going forward.”
Cbus, which is chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, has been the biggest backer of “nation building” projects to date, including as the only super fund to invest in the government’s controversial Housing Australia Future Fund.
But Mr Chatfield said the fund was “much more focused on the renewable area, particularly onshore and offshore wind and solar” when it came to supporting the energy transition.
Too slow
For Mr Graham, nuclear did not meet the “near time” emissions reduction strategies Aware needed to invest in to meet its energy transition targets.
These include a 45 per cent reduction in scope one and two emissions in its portfolio and net zero by 2050.
“We’re working towards that, and that doesn’t involve investing in nuclear,” Mr Graham.
“If there was a change [in policy] and there were new opportunities, we’d need to understand them … but the general view we have is we need to be making more near-time progress that I think nuclear appears to provide.
“It’s a long-term build, no doubt about it, and we need to be making really clear progress by 2030.”
He pointed to renewables and other transition-supporting technologies as attractive investment opportunities for the $170 billion super fund instead.
Mr Dutton pledged two nuclear power plants would be operational by 2035 under his plan and more potentially by 2037 if he was elected next year, despite the CSIRO estimating the first full operation of a station could be “no sooner” than 2040.
HESTA head of portfolio management Jeff Brunton declined to comment categorically on whether the healthcare workers’ fund would invest in nuclear, but noted some of its decarbonisation targets also had deadlines of 2030 rather than 2050.
It planned to invest 10 per cent of its funds under management into “green solutions” such as renewable energy and cut the carbon intensity of its overall portfolio by 50 per cent by 2050.
“So we need to deploy into those sorts of ideas – batteries, solar, wind farms – now,” Mr Brunton said.
He also noted HESTA would invest in line with the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute and Commonwealth Treasury’s sustainable investment taxonomy, which is currently being developed.
In a public consultation paper released in May, the groups proposed excluding nuclear power as a sustainable investment option under the taxonomy as its development is currently illegal in Australia.
Uncertainty abounds
Other CIOs said proposed policies to introduce nuclear power in Australia were too vague to justify considering investment.
Mr Dutton was criticised when he released his plan to introduce nuclear power to Australia for its lack of detail. He proposed seven sites for government-owned power plants, but did not provide any costing for the scheme and partly relied on technology that is not yet commercially viable.
“We don’t want to front-run [nuclear] saying we see an opportunity when there’s not the policy,” Mark Delaney, who runs AustralianSuper’s $335 billion investment portfolio, said.
He said nuclear was “a classic ESG issue” as it involved looking for long-term issues – in this case decarbonisation – that could positively or negatively affect returns, but there were still too many uncertainties.
“The policy will set the topography which any investment takes place in … [so] when they’ve worked out their policy, we will look for the opportunities.”
Colonial First State CIO Jonathan Armitage was on the hunt for undervalued infrastructure assets to bolster his fund’s unlisted exposure, but said nuclear was not part of that mix.
“Right now, there’s not enough information to make an informed decision,” he said. It would take “a lot more” to enable any serious consideration.
Don’t let Dutton nuclear waste our taxes
Philip White – letter sent to Adelaide Advertiser, 8 July 24
Nuclear proponents have to discredit CSIRO’s costings, or the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy looks ridiculous. They say CSIRO underestimates reactors’ operating lives and utilisation rate.
Due to the time value of money, increasing the lifespan doesn’t make as much difference as you might think. But what sensible person would base their investment decision on 60, or 80, or even 100 year lifespans?
The oldest operating reactor in the world is 54 years old, while the mean age of the 29 units taken off the grid between 2018 and 2022 was 43.5 years.
As for utilisation, the Coalition’s suggested 90% plus rate would actually present a problem for the grid. When demand is low you’d have to shut down all other generation.
But it’s not realistic anyway. Nuclear proponents love to point to France as their poster child, but its utilisation rate in 2022 was just 62%. More than half of its reactors were taken offline due to maintenance or technical problems. It also had to limit output due to problems cooling the reactors during the hot summer.
No House? Two-party Senate squeeze on cross-bench locks in Defence spending debacle
Defence has little oversight. Whenever they turn up to Senate Estimates or the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Accounts and Auditing, and the subject matter strays into areas of embarrassment, Defence pleads “it’s classified, we can’t talk about it.”
by Rex Patrick | Jul 8, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/no-house-two-party-senate-squeeze-on-cross-bench-locks-in-defence-spending-debacle/ (sorry about the coloured bits – my ludditeness)
On the last day of sitting before the winter parliamentary break, the Albanese Government, who’ve had bills delayed and amended, for the first time in the 47th Parliament had a piece of legislation voted down in the Senate. It’s an outcome that does not serve Australians well. Rex Patrick reports.
Comedy in the Senate
Last Thursday in the Senate, Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge rose from his seat and gave an impromptu speech on Defence. Anyone watching might reasonably have thought he was engaging in a moment of comedy, but he wasn’t; the topic was deadly serious.
“It’s hard to know where you end the list of defence procurement disasters which have happened because, whether it’s Labor in government or the Coalition in government, whether it’s Labor in opposition or Coalition in opposition, the usual practice is that the club doesn’t hold Defence to account.“
The club just signs off on whatever new funding fantasy Defence comes up with and pretends that Defence can achieve it.
Zero, zero,zero
Shoebridge then made some blunt observations on submarine procurement.
“Two decades of this nonsense on submarines has given us a $20 billion hole. I’m trying to think how many submarines we got in the last 20 years – oh, zero. We’ve given $5 billion to the French for no subs, $5 billion to the US for no subs, $5 billion to the UK for no subs and $5 billion trying to keep the Collins class going for another ten years under an experimental project. How many new subs have we got? Zero”
He moved on to frigates.
“I think we were meant to get nine frigates for $45 billion. Now it looks like we’re going to get six frigates, and guess what the price tag will be? It’s $45 billion and counting.”
“Let’s be clear: the $45 billion on the Hunter frigates is to date the single largest procurement contract ever signed by the Commonwealth, and it’s a disaster zone. How many Hunter frigates do we have? You’ll be pleased to know we have the same number of Hunter frigates in service as we have new submarines. Zero.”
He finally turned to the Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessels……………………………
A mess that needs fixing
Defence, by far, has the most public money committed to projects. If you wanted only one agency of government to spend money wisely, it would be Defence.
But they don’t spend it wisely. Defence procurement is an absolute mess. [excellent chart here on original]
The starting point for that mess is Admirals, Air Marshalls and Generals with little project and risk management experience making purchasing recommendations to Cabinet ministers with no experience in project and risk management.
Senator Shoebridge rightly pinged the timidity of successive governments, cabinets and ministers when it comes to defence:
“They pretend they’re tough on Defence until somebody strides into the room with a little bit of gold braid on their shoulder, and then there’s this obscene subservience from both the Labor party and the coalition: ‘Oh, Sir! Oh, Madam! How much money can we give you? Does it go ‘whoosh’? Will it go ‘bang’ at some point? Oh, that’s great! You can have the money.”
Oversight vacuum
And that leads us to the failed Bill last Thursday.
.
Defence has little oversight. Whenever they turn up to Senate Estimates or the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Accounts and Auditing, and the subject matter strays into areas of embarrassment, Defence pleads “it’s classified, we can’t talk about it.”
In late May, the Government introduced a Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 that would establish a parliamentary committee that would meet in secret (by default) and have the power to inquire into just about any aspect of Defence.
The Committee, as prescribed in the Government’s Bill, was to consist of 13 Senators and MPs: seven Government members and six non-government members. The Liberals and Nationals went into a cataclysmic spasm. This would allow the Prime Minister to appoint a cross-bencher or two. OMG!
We have 14 cross benchers in the House (out of 151 MPs – 9%) and 20 cross benchers in the Senate (out of 76 senators – 26%). Having their representation on the Committee is appropriate, particularly given that most Defence projects are so long they extend across parliamentary terms and indeed several changes of government. Both Labor and the Coalition are to blame for the many screw-ups and are hesitant to engage in vigorous scrutinise.
So, Senator Birmingham moved an amendment to restrict the membership to seven government members and six opposition members. That amendment went down, and the Government and cross-bench voted against his changes. This put a nail in the Bill’s coffin, ensuring the Coalition would eventually vote against it.
So, Senator Birmingham moved an amendment to restrict the membership to seven government members
Two-party squeeze
Senator Shoebridge, rightly suspicious of the wording of Labor’s Bill, sought to amend it from seven Government members and six non-government members (which could easily just mean opposition members) to seven government members, four opposition members and two cross-benchers, one from the House and one from the Senate. That option was not supported by Labor or Liberal and was voted down.
That left the original wording of the Bill without Liberal or cross-bench support. The Bill went then went down in flames. It was Labor’s first comprehensive legislative failure in this Parliament.
There were some happy winners though; Defence’s bloated and complacent bureaucratic leadership. For them it’s business as usual; billions of taxpayers’ dollars to splurge with little scrutiny and even less accountability. There were, no doubt, a few bottles of (contractor supplied) champagne popping at Defence central on Russell Hill. They had dodged a bullet.
Politics, as it so often does, got in the way of a good outcome for the Australia public.
Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle
The Conversation, Asma Aziz, Senior Lecturer in Power Engineering, Edith Cowan University, 8 July 24
Keeping the lights on in Australia is a complex task. Enough capacity must be ensured everywhere in the country, at every moment. Surplus in one location won’t solve shortages in another, unless we have the transmission infrastructure to transmit electricity between them.
The transmission network largely consists of high-voltage lines and towers, as well as transformers which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another.
Australia’s transmission network is one of the oldest and longest in the world. As coal stations close and more renewable energy is built, the task of upgrading the system becomes even more pressing. So formidable is the challenge, it’s one of the biggest roadblocks Australia faces in reaching its crucial goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Coalition’s plan for seven nuclear energy plants in Australia further complicates the task. A clear policy direction for Australia’s electricity system is urgently needed………………………………………………………………………………………………………
So far this decade, 490 kilometres of new transmission lines have reportedly been added to the National Electricity Market, which serves the east coast and South Australia. A further 2,090 km of transmission lines are progressing from the planning phase to the construction phase.
There’s still a lot of work to do: around 10,000 km of new transmission lines is needed by 2050. Western Australia’s main electricity network also needs more than 4,000 km of new high-capacity transmission lines.
Transmission congestion in Australia is a looming problem. For example, South Australian transmission company ElectraNet forecasts rising congestion on that state’s network due to planned expansions of electricity generators, peaking in the late 2020s and 2030s.
What’s more, planning studies have identified ageing assets in Queensland’s transmission network, requiring new routes to manage constraints and ensure reliable supply.
Where does nuclear fit in?
All this has implications for the Coalition’s nuclear plan, if it comes to fruition.
The CSIRO and others say a nuclear power plant of any size would not be operational in Australia until after 2040.
If transmission lines are congested at that future point, nuclear power plants may not be able to send all their electricity to the grid.
Nuclear plants are expensive to build and run. But they typically generate electricity continuously, helping to offset these costs. If the plants can’t feed into the grid, or can’t sell their electricity at competitive prices, they may lose revenue and struggle to cover their costs, affecting their long-term viability.
The continuous high output of nuclear plants also helps them run efficiently. Frequently adjusting energy output leads to more wear, lower efficiency and reduced energy production over time.
Constraining nuclear output can have broader repercussions, too. In France, for instance, nuclear output is at a 30-year low, forcing the country to import electricity and prepare for potential blackouts. The reactors are offline for maintenance, not due to transmission issues. But the example highlights the consequences when nuclear energy is taken out of the mix for any reason. https://theconversation.com/without-a-massive-grid-upgrade-the-coalitions-nuclear-plan-faces-a-high-voltage-hurdle-233458?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton
Dutton’s claim about G20 nuclear energy use doesn’t add up
William Summers , July 5, 2024, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/duttons-claim-about-g20-nuclear-energy-use-doesnt-add-up/
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Australia is the only G20 nation that doesn’t use nuclear power.
OUR VERDICT
Misleading. Five other G20 nations don’t generate nuclear power, and two of those don’t use it.
AAP FACTCHECK – Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claims Australia is the only country not to use nuclear energy out of the world’s 20 largest economies.
This is misleading. Five other nations in the top 20 – Germany, Italy, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia – do not generate nuclear energy.
Germany, Italy and Turkiye import very small amounts of electricity generated from nuclear sources, but Indonesia and Saudi Arabia don’t consume any nuclear power.
Australia is the only top 20 economy that doesn’t generate, import or have a plan to do so.
Mr Dutton has made the claim at least four times in interviews about the coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia without clarifying that he’s counting countries planning to use nuclear power among those that are actually using it.
Mr Dutton said nuclear power was “used by 19 of the 20 biggest economies in the world” at a June 18 press conference in NSW.
He again claimed that of the top 20 economies in the world, “Australia is the only one that doesn’t have nuclear” in a June 20 interview on Sky News.
That same day, the opposition leader spoke out about how Australia could benefit from nuclear power “as 19 of the world’s top 20 economies have done” in an ABC News Breakfast interview.
Mr Dutton again said Australia was the only one of the 20 biggest economies that “doesn’t operate” nuclear at a press conference on July 5.
When asked to clarify his claims, the opposition leader’s spokeswoman told AAP FactCheck that he’s counting countries that have nuclear power and those “taking steps towards embracing nuclear”.
Mr Dutton accurately stated 19 of the world’s 20 biggest economies used nuclear power or “have signed up to it” in another press conference on June 19, and a Today Show interview on June 21.
He also said Australia was the only G20 member that didn’t use or plan to use nuclear power in an ABC TV interview on April 21.
The G20 is a global forum for countries with large economies. Despite its name, the G20 includes only 19 nations, plus the African Union and the European Union. Spain is invited to the G20 as a permanent guest.
It’s unclear if Mr Dutton is referring to the G20 countries plus Spain, or the 20 largest nations by gross domestic product, as he’s used both interchangeably.
However, AAP FactCheck has analysed the former because the nations that don’t generate nuclear power and the nations that only import small amounts of it are exactly the same for both groupings, as per World Bank 2023 GDP data.
Fourteen G20 countries operate nuclear power plants: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, the UK and the US.
Three G20 nations that don’t generate nuclear power but import small amounts are Germany, Italy and Turkiye.
Germany shut down its final three reactors in April 2023. That year, about 0.5 per cent of the electricity consumed there was imported from France, which generates about two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear sources.
Italy closed its last reactors in 1990. About six per cent of its electricity consumption is imported nuclear power.
The country effectively banned nuclear power in 2011, but the current government wants to restart it.
Turkiye is building a plant that could start generating electricity from 2025. The country is also planning to build two other nuclear plants.
In 2022, the country imported a tiny amount of the electricity it consumed, including 0.8 per cent from Bulgaria, which generates about 35 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources.
Therefore, a fraction of Turkiye’s electricity consumption could be produced from nuclear – likely less than half a per cent.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t use any nuclear energy either but it’s taking steps towards doing so in future.
Indonesia doesn’t have any nuclear reactors but has tentative plans to build some in the coming decades.
Dr Yogi Sugiawan, a policy analyst at the Indonesian government agency responsible for developing nuclear energy policies and plans, told AAP FactCheck that his country doesn’t generate or import nuclear energy.
However, Dr Sugiawan says Indonesia’s government is considering nuclear power, with an initial plant “expected to be commissioned before 2040”.
THE VERDICT
The claim that Australia is the only G20 nation that doesn’t use nuclear power is misleading.
Evidence and experts say six G20 countries do not generate any nuclear energy, and three of those don’t consume it either.
Misleading – The claim is accurate in parts but information has also been presented incorrectly, out of context or omitted.
AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Australians being kept in the dark about Pine Gap expansion
Mark Robinson, June 18, 2024, https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/australians-being-kept-dark-about-pine-gap-expansion—
A massive expansion program at the United States base at Pine Gap has been hidden from the public according to a new investigation in the June 15 Saturday Paper.
Peter Cronau revealed that over the last few years the secretive base has been expanded to now include 10 new satellite, or antennae, dishes.
The work involved clearing 14 hectares of land to accommodate three new radomes. None of the work was announced, or required any normal approval process.
“The lack of transparency surrounding this work is unacceptable,” said Dr Alison Broinowski, spokesperson for Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR).
“Cronau’s investigation makes clear that the community was not informed, nor consulted in any way, about the expanded footprint at Pine Gap.”
According to Cronau: “No announcement was made to the Australian population, no permission sought from parliament, no development application to the regional council for the works.”
“Australians expect sensitive decisions such as these to be made in an open and accountable way, including a discussion in parliament but this report shows the parliament has been side-lined again,” said Broinowski.
“Instead, we discover what is happening via the media who had to access satellite imagery in order to keep the public informed.”
Reports in recent months suggest that Pine Gap is playing a role in the military onslaught in Gaza, which millions of Australians would disagree with.
Cronau’s investigation highlights Pine Gape’s role in the US nuclear weapons program, and how the base would be used in the event of a war between big powers.
“The community and the parliament have never been asked if we want to be involved in this process yet these facilities are being expanded without due process. This should concern everyone,” Broinowski said.
“Without full transparency about Pine Gap and other military bases Australia could easily be dragged into another foreign war before we know it. In fact, we may already be involved in existing conflicts via these bases and because of increasing military interoperability with the US.”
She said Cronau’s investigation “highlights the urgent need for war powers reform”.
Australia further in the grip of the USA, with the Amazon data spy hub – paid for by Aussie tax-payers!
Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles was ecstatic as he announced the secret deal now organised for Australia to pay for Amazon to set up secret spy databanks, just as he was ecstatic about the government’s AUKUS deal for buying nuclear submarines from USA and UK
It’s not as if the public knew about either of these decisions beforehand, (the AUKUS one being largely arranged with scandal-ridden consultancy PWC). It’s not as if these matters were discussed in Parliament. On both occasions, the government just did it.
Points that haven’t been addressed:
Australian taxpayers again foot the bill to an America private company
Amazon private staff will be running the operation – with access to the data?
The whole thing perpetrates the lie about the data being “in the cloud” – but there is no “cloud”. The data will be in gigantic steel containers, set out on a large area.
The data containers will require massive amounts of electricity. ? supplied by nuclear power
The data containers will require massive amounts of cooling water, in this dry, water-short country..
The whole set up, just like the now-being expanded Pine Gap. will form a dangerous target for terrorists, or for enemies of the USA.
Like Pine Gap, it is probable that Australian authorities will have limited access to the information. And as artificial intelligence is involved – who IS going to be in control?
And what’s to stop the USA officials and the Australian government spying on Australian individuals via the Five Eyes?
The whole set-up will be the servant of the Five Eyes, secret intelligence of five English-speaking countries, ( no trust in Europe, or any non-anglophone nation) but controlled by the USA.
The vast amount of tax-payer money going to all this means the money is not going to Australians’ health, welfare, education, environment, climate action – in other words to the common good.
As the USA Supreme Court has just made the U.S. president effectively above the law – this secret deal with Amazon and the USA puts Australia more firmly in the grip of the USA – (and God help us if Trump wins).
Amazon wins contract to store ‘top-secret’ Australian military intelligence
Please note – this article uses the word “cloud” – but this isa a lie
There is no cloud.
What they mean is -acres and acres of dirty great steel canisters, guzzling electricity and water
By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, Thu 4 Jul 2024 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-04/amazon-contract-top-secret-australian-military-intelligence/104057196
In short:
Three data centres will be built in secret locations to host Australia’s military secrets.
Amazon has won the $2 billion contract to store the classified intelligence.
What’s next?
The massive project will roll out over several years, and is expected to create more than 2,000 jobs
American technology giant Amazon will establish a “top-secret” data cloud to store classified Australian military and intelligence information under a $2 billion partnership with the federal government.
Three highly secure data centres will be built in secret locations across the country to support the purpose-built Top Secret (TS) Cloud which will be run by a local subsidiary of Amazon Web Services (AWS).
The massive new project is expected to harness cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology and scheduled to be in operation by 2027, with the government insisting Australia will have complete sovereignty over the cloud.
Similar data clouds have already been established in the US and UK allowing the sharing of “vast amounts of information”, with intelligence figures highlighting that potential adversaries were also investing heavily in similar technology.
Initially, the government will invest at least $2 billion into the project being run by the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and AWS, but it’s expected to cost billions more in operating costs over the coming years.
Details of the massive project were first revealed in a speech to an American audience last year by the director-general of national intelligence Andrew Shearer, who emphasised the benefits it presented for collaboration for partner nations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the project will create 2,000 jobs and “bolster our defence and national intelligence community to ensure they can deliver world-leading protection for our nation”.
“We face a range of complex and serious security challenges and I am incredibly proud of the work our national security agencies undertake on a daily basis to keep Australians safe,” Mr Albanese said
ASD director-general Rachel Noble said the project would provide a “state-of-the-art collaborative space for our intelligence and defence community to store and access top secret data”.
“For ASD, this capability is a vital part of our REDSPICE program which is lifting our intelligence and offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”
AWS’ managing director in Australia, Iain Rouse, says his company is “uniquely positioned, as a trusted, long-term partner to the Australian government to deliver on this important partnership”.
“This critical national security initiative allows AWS to demonstrate our commitment to not just deliver a fixed set of requirements, but to continuously adapt, enhance and innovate together over the years to come.”
With its nuclear energy policy, Peter Dutton seems to have forgotten the Liberal Party’s core beliefs
Judith Brett, Emeritus Professor of Politics, La Trobe University,6 July 24, https://theconversation.com/with-its-nuclear-energy-policy-peter-dutton-seems-to-have-forgotten-the-liberal-partys-core-beliefs-233444
When Robert Menzies was out of office in 1943, in between prime ministerships, he was thinking about the future of non-Labor politics in wartime Australia. He read Edmund Burke’s book Thought on the Present Discontents. In it, Burke included the now-famous definition of a political party as:
a body of men united in promoting by their joint endeavour the national interest upon some particular principle on which they are all agreed.
For Burke, political parties were legitimate when they were based on shared principles and were committed neither to personal nor sectional interest, but to the interest of the nation as a whole.
Recently, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition would not have an emissions reduction target for 2030. Instead, it would build seven nuclear power plants to reach zero emissions by 2050.
I have spent much of my research life thinking and writing about the Liberal Party and its predecessors, as well its three most successful leaders: Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies and John Howard. So I have been running Dutton’s nuclear policies against my understanding of the Liberal party’s core principles.
It’s left me puzzled. Setting aside the many technical questions about the cost and feasibility of the plan, the proposal seems to breach some of those core principles.
Public ownership?
Political parties change and evolve over time, so it’s worth assessing the Liberal Party’s current web page for a contemporary statement of beliefs.
As expected, there are clear statements about the party’s commitment to maximising private sector initiatives. This includes statements like “government should only do those things the private sector cannot”, and “wherever possible government should not compete with an efficient private sector”.
So why is the Liberal Party proposing to build and own nuclear power plants on sites the government doesn’t even own, like Liddell in New South Wales? Or Loy Yang in Victoria where the owner, AGL, has plans already in train to develop low-emission industrial energy hubs?
How would a resort to compulsory acquisition of privately owned sites be justified by a party committed to private enterprise? And what would be the cost of these acquisitions?
Section 51 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to acquire property “on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.” Just terms – that means the property so acquired has to be paid for, by us, the tax payer, and this has to be added to the considerable cost of building the plants.
What about the states?
The state premiers of Queensland, NSW and Victoria oppose the plan, as do some Liberal opposition leaders such as Victoria’s John Pesutto.
Speaking to the Liberal Party Federal Council in June, Dutton said that the Commonwealth can override state laws, so the state premiers won’t be able to stop the plan.
Well it can, but it requires legislation that has to get through a Senate unlikely to be controlled by any future Coalition government. It would also cost a mountain of political capital.
But in terms of principles, how does this sit with the Liberal Party’s long-standing support for the rights of the states within the federation? One of the Liberal Party’s beliefs is that “responsibility should be divided according to federal principles, without the Commonwealth taking advantage of powers it has acquired other than by referendum.”
National interest or political interest?
It seems the policy as announced breaches two of the Liberal party’s core principles:
government should not do what is better left to private enterprise- the Commonwealth should respect state rights
But what of the national interest? The Liberal Party has always claimed it is not a sectional party and so is best able to represent the national interest. This, it says, is in contrast to Labor, with its ties to the unionised working class, and the Country Party turned Nationals which represents farmers, the regions, and increasingly, the miners.
What was most shocking about the Coalition’s plan is that it blithely flirts with sovereign risk and hence with Australia’s national interest. This is completely out of character for the Liberal Party.
Energy infrastructure is a long-term investment. Local and foreign investors are spooked by the collapse of bipartisan commitment to a clean energy transition and reconsidering their investment plans. And if the investment goes, so will the jobs it would have created. How is this in the national interest?
Shadow Minister for Energy Ted O’Brien tried to settle investors down by claiming the Coalition was still committed to renewables as well, but with little detail about the planned mix.
The only one of the Liberal Party’s traditional principles visible in this policy is the one that gives the leader, rather than the party, authority over policy.
But where does this leave the Liberals in federal parliament when their leader’s policy is so fundamentally at odds with their party’s core beliefs? Loyalty to the leader can only go so far. Perhaps Liberal MPs should consult their party’s website to remind themselves of the principles on which they stood for election. It seems in the pursuit of winning political points, political principles are all too easy to forget.
Australia’s ‘carbon budget’ may blow out by 40% under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan – and that’s the best-case scenario
The Conversation, Sven Teske, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney July 2, 2024
The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors, if elected, would represent a huge shift in energy policy for Australia. It also poses serious questions about whether this nation can meet its international climate obligations.
If Australia is to honour the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5˚C by mid-century, it can emit about 3 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon dioxide (CO₂) over the next 25 years. This remaining allowance is what’s known as our “carbon budget”.
My colleagues and I recently outlined the technological options for Australia to remain within its carbon budget. We did this using a tool we developed over many years, the “One Earth Climate Model”. It’s a detailed study of pathways for various countries to meet the 1.5˚C goal.
So what happens if we feed the Coalition’s nuclear strategy into the model? As I outline below, even if the reactors are built, the negative impact on Australia’s carbon emissions would be huge. Over the next decade, the renewables transition would stall and coal and gas emissions would rise – possibly leading to a 40% blowout in Australia’s carbon budget.
Australia has a pathway to 1.5˚C
Earlier this year, my colleagues and I analysed the various ways Australia could reduce emissions in line with the 1.5˚ goal…………………………………………………………………………. more https://theconversation.com/australias-carbon-budget-may-blow-out-by-40-under-the-coalitions-nuclear-energy-plan-and-thats-the-best-case-scenario-233108
Federal Coalition urged to retract claims linking medical technologies to nuclear power plans.
Margaret Beavis, Thursday, July 4, 2024,
Introduction by Croakey: Traditional owners of the Jabiluka uranium site in the Northern Territory are concerned the Federal Opposition’s plans for nuclear energy will increase demand for mining on their land, according to an ABC report.
As Croakey has previously reported, the Coalition’s nuclear plans have also been slammed by health, medical and scientific experts, with particular concerns for impacts upon First Nations peoples’ health and wellbeing.
In the article below, Dr Margaret Beavis OAM, Vice President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW), calls on the Opposition to retract “patently false” claims made about a link between nuclear power and radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine, which seek to “misrepresent nuclear medicine for political gain”. She also notes the likely derailing of climate action, and the problems of toxic waste and the potential for accidents and nuclear proliferation.
Meanwhile, Independent MP Dr Monique Ryan has urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to call an early election, warning that the Coalition has “recklessly jammed a stick into the spokes of the Australian economy by refusing to reveal a 2030 emissions reduction target and confusing the country with a threadbare nuclear energy announcement”.
Margaret Beavis writes:
The proposal for nuclear power in Australia needs more scrutiny from the public health perspective.
There are three aspects that are particularly problematic.
Firstly, investment in renewables will be damaged, making urgently needed decarbonisation much harder, worsening the very well documented health impacts of climate change.
No-one is pretending nuclear power can be implemented quickly. But for those who feel optimistic, looking at democracies similar to ours demonstrates the reality. The Hinkley Point plan in the United Kingdom, Flamanville in France, and Vogtle and VC Summer (abandoned after spending USD 9 billion) in the United States all have had both massive delays and major cost blowouts.
Slower roll out means even more coal and gas, and all the climate and health impacts that go with that. Compounding these delays will be the need in Australia for legislation at both state and federal level, and our lack of expertise and established workforce.
Secondly, the Coalition claims made about radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine are patently false and deliberately misleading.
A letter sent by Coalition MPs to their constituents last month claimed that: “Nuclear energy already plays a major role in medicine and healthcare, diagnosing and treating thousands of Australians every day.”
We do not have, and have never had, nuclear power in Australia, and nuclear power has no connection to our world class nuclear medicine sector.
Australians will continue to benefit from diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine irrespective of whether Australia’s future is powered by reactors or renewables. Nuclear power is not nuclear medicine, it is not X-Rays, and it is not radiotherapy.
X-Rays and radiotherapy do not use a nuclear reactor at all. Nuclear medicine in Australia – used to diagnose and treat some types of heart disease, thyroid conditions, infections, injuries, and cancers – involves radioactive elements (isotopes) that are made using a small research nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in NSW.
Lucas Heights cannot and has not produced commercial power. But, like all nuclear reactors, it does produce radioactive waste that remains highly toxic for 10,000 years.
The Coalition also claims, on a website promoting the “need” for nuclear energy in Australia, that: “Research and advancements in radiation technology continue to evolve, providing new and improved methods for both diagnosing and treating diseases…”
False connections
Advancements to improve health outcomes and to reduce the size and risks of radiation exposures will occur whether or not Australia has nuclear power. With renewable energy, nuclear medicine will still exist and advance – our loved ones will still be treated and be cared for.
It’s disappointing that the Coalition has chosen to misrepresent nuclear medicine for political gain, and to make false connections between nuclear power and health.
Finally, it is important to consider the problems of waste and the risk of accidents, attacks and weapons proliferation.
Nuclear power poses significant risks to the health of people and the planet.
It is far from the zero emissions technology its acolytes claim it to be.
As noted, reactor waste is highly toxic for over 10,000 years. It remains globally an unsolved problem. The failure over decades to find a site for Australia’s existing limited amount of intermediate waste illustrates communities’ concerns.
First Nations communities have been repeatedly targeted. They have suffered enough from the impacts of British nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties.
Accidents can and do occur. There have been many near misses and at least 15 accidents risking uncontrolled radioactive release, involving fuel or core damage in Canada, Germany, Japan, Slovakia, the UK, Ukraine and the US.
Attacks on facilities could also cause extensive releases of radiation. A significant radiation release would require major long-term evacuation.
In addition, nuclear power is clearly linked with nuclear proliferation. Tilman Ruff, formerly at the Nossal Institute for Global Health in the School of Population and Global Health at University of Melbourne and co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), wrote in 2019:
South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea have primarily used the HEU (highly enriched uranium) route to build nuclear weapons, India and Israel primarily a plutonium route. All have used facilities and fuel that were ostensibly for peaceful purposes.”
Indeed, the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons was part of former Australian Prime Minister John Gorton’s reasoning when considering a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay.
In summary, building nuclear power in Australia will have significant long term adverse public health impacts. Extravagant claims that existing medical technologies and medical advances are somehow linked to plans for nuclear power are plainly wrong.
We urge the Coalition to retract these statements and remove inaccurate information from its marketing materials. We also urge they reconsider this policy, given its major health impacts both locally and globally.
Dr Margaret Beavis OAM is Vice President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) and a former GP who teaches medicine at Melbourne University. She has lectured on nuclear medicine and nuclear waste in Melbourne University’s MPH program.
Coalition parties asked to respond
Croakey has asked Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Leader of the Nationals Party David Littleproud for responses to the below questions raised in three articles Croakey has published on the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan.
- Health, medical and scientific experts have rejected your nuclear energy plans as dangerous and a way to delay climate action. What is your response?
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities have raised concerns that nuclear energy would harm their health, wellbeing and connection to Country. What is your response?
- Additionally, health professionals have called for the Coalition to retract claims that medical technologies are linked to nuclear power plans. What is your response?
- Will you continue with your nuclear energy plan if local communities oppose reactors?
- How will you manage harms to health by delaying action on climate change and decarbonisation?
- Who will provide disaster insurance (Fukushima clean up estimated at $470-$660 billion)?
If you don’t know, vote ‘No’ to Dutton’s nuclear plan
The CSIRO has investigated this carefully and has produced a detailed report saying that nuclear energy is not feasible. So, too, has Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel.
The L-NP has rejected both these reports and attacked the credibility of the scientists who prepared them, without offering any details themselves that counter the two reports.
By Craig Hill | 4 July 2024,
OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton still refuses to release any details about how he will introduce nuclear energy into Australia. Therefore let’s look at some details of why it won’t work.
The first clue should be that there are no private investors who have expressed an interest in building a nuclear power plant.
All the energy companies in Australia have rejected nuclear energy as not being feasible and have invested billions of dollars in transitioning to renewables.
Secondly, all nuclear reactors take a long time to build. We wouldn’t be able to have one online until 2040 at the earliest.
You can’t just build them anywhere. Dutton’s plan to build them on the sites of existing coal-fired power plants is ill-informed and reckless.
Existing plants are built near coal mines with underground tunnels prone to subsidence. The soil is also contaminated which has caused changes in the silt layer, increasing the chance of subsidence. The last thing we want is nuclear power plants sinking into the ground.
Nuclear power plants also need to be built near large freshwater supplies. The water supplies that exist near coal-fired plants are not large enough and are also contaminated.
The ideal place to build nuclear plants would be near large existing dams that supply water for our major cities. I don’t think anybody would be agreeable to the possibility of a nuclear power plant contaminating the water supply.
Also, take into account that nuclear power plants were first built in the USA in 1955. Since then, 255 plants have been built and today, only 60 continue to operate commercially, with the last one going online in 2018. There are no new plants under construction in the USA.
Of the 60 that are operating commercially, only 30 are operating at a profit. After 70 years of nuclear power plant construction, nuclear energy only provides 18.6 per cent of America’s electricity supply.
Compare this to renewable energy which first came online in the USA in 2008. Today, renewable energy is responsible for 21.4 per cent of electricity production in the United States.
Nuclear is on the way out in America and renewables are replacing it. Even the Americans have realised that nuclear energy production is far more expensive than renewables.
The CSIRO has investigated this carefully and has produced a detailed report saying that nuclear energy is not feasible. So, too, has Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel.
The L-NP has rejected both these reports and attacked the credibility of the scientists who prepared them, without offering any details themselves that counter the two reports.
Best we Forget – Australia’s 70 year old nuclear contamination secrets about to be exposed
by Sue Rabbitt Roff | Jun 28, 2024 https://michaelwest.com.au/best-we-forget-australias-70-year-old-nuclear-contamination-secrets-about-to-be-exposed/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-07-04&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update
While Peter Dutton gets headlines for his nuclear fairytale and the Labor Government presses on with its AUKUS submarines, the fallout from nuclear bomb testing in the Pilbara in 1956 finally reaches court. Sue Roff reports from London.
In 1956, on the remote Montebello Islands off Western Australia, an atomic bomb was tested. It was supposed to be no more than 50 kilotons, but in fact measured 98 kilotons, or more than six times the strength of the bomb dropped over Hiroshima in 1945.
Ever since then, Australian and UK Governments have suppressed the facts and denied compensation to the victims. That may finally be about to change.
Three months ago, veterans of Britain’s Cold War radioactive weapons tests formally launched proceedings against the UK Ministry of Defence, alleging negligence in its duty of care to the men themselves and their families before, during and after the tests that began at the Montebellos in 1952.
MWM, “The opening phase seeks the full disclosure by the Ministry of Defence of all records of blood and urine testing conducted during the weapons trials, with compensation sought for MoD negligence and recklessness if they were lost or destroyed.”
At the same time, the veterans have made an offer to resolve their claim through the creation of a Special Tribunal with statutory powers to investigate and compensate if decades of cover-up are established.
A very big bomb
In October 1955, the Director of British atomic and thermonuclear tests in Australia, Professor William Penney, wrote to the Chair of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority about the two detonations that were planned for the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956:
‘Yesterday I think I gave you the impression that the second shot at Montebello will be about 80 K.T. [kilotons]. This is the figure to which we are working as far as health and safety are concerned. We do not know exactly what the yield is going to be because the assembly is very different from anything we have tried before.
We expect that yield will be 40 or 50, but it might just go up to 80 which is the safe upper limit.
In fact, in recent years, it has been listed on the website of ARPANSA [the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency] as 98 kilotons.
The politics
A UK memo found in the UK National Archives that is undated but filed around August 1955, states:
“TESTS IN Montebello ISLANDS (CODE NAME ‘MOSAIC’) 25 7.
“We had agreed with the Australian Government that we would not test thermo-nuclear weapons in Australia, but [Australian Prime Minister] Mr. Menzies has nevertheless agreed to the firings taking place in the Montebello Islands (off the North-West coast of Western Australia), which have already been used before for atomic tests [emphasis added].”“As already explained, the Australians are very sensitive on the question of thermo-nuclear explosions, and although the true character of these tests is understood by the authorities immediately concerned, knowledge of the trials is restricted to a very small circle and no public statement has so far been made; when it is made, it will therefore require very careful handling.”
“Apparently it is still being very carefully handled by government agencies. 70 years after the British atomic and thermonuclear tests started in Australia scores of files held in the Australian National National Archives are marked ‘Not yet examined’. We urgently need to create an independent archive of Australia’s nuclear past.”
The falloutIn Roeboure, some 200km away from the blast, a witness – then seven-year-old John Weiland wrote later of “hearing and feeling the blast before going outside to see the cloud. My mother said she remembers material falling on her. I was in primary school at the time and we all stood out on the verandah to watch the cloud.”
Weiland later wrote to ARPANSA asking “if any testing was done or any follow up done particularly with the 30 or so children of the school. But I was told there was no radiation blown across from the islands.”
In December 1957, eighteen months after the second G2 Operation Mosaic blast at the Montebellos, the five scientific members of the Atomic Weapons Safety Committee (AWSC) appointed by the Australian government published a report titled ‘Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation ‘Mosaic’ in The Australian Journal of Science.
without approaching the mainland of Australia.’ However ‘a pronounced stable layer produced a marked bulge on the stem which trapped a small quantity of particulate material and this was spread to the south-east of the Montebello Islands …The more finely suspended material’ or ‘debris’ was dispersed in the first 48 hours …’ although there was light rain over Marble Bar.
Thirty years after this AWSC report, the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia issued its 1987 report after 18 months of hearings around Australia and in London. In relation to Mosaic G2 it reported:“7.4.25 The post-firing winds behaved similarly to those after Gl, i.e. they weakened and then began to blow to the south and east. An analysis of the trajectories of fallout particles showed that fallout at Port Hedland occurred 24 hours after the explosion and consisted of particles that originated from 20,000 feet in the region of the top of the stem and the bottom of the cloud….[RC 270, T24/57).”
“Clearly part of the main cloud did cross the mainland.”
The Royal Commission also concluded, “The Safety Committee communications with the Minister for Supply soon after the second explosion, when it reported that the cloud had not crossed the coast, with the implication that there was no fallout on the mainland, were misleading.”
Nearly forty years later, in January 2024, John Weiland submitted a query to the Talk to A Scientist portal of ARPANSA, asking for information. The unsigned response four days later referred him to Appendices B & C of a 32 year old document attached to the official response. A report, ‘Public Health Impact of Fallout from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, 1952-57, has a diagram annotated ‘Trajectories taken by radioactive clouds across Australia for the nuclear tests in the Mosaic and Antler Series. The main debris clouds from Mosaic Rounds 1 and 2 are not shown as they remained largely over the Indian Ocean, moving to the northeast parallel to the coast.’ (emphasis added).This diagram [ on original) doesn’t correlate with the maps in the Royal Commission Report north of Broome nor those of the AWTSC report in 1957 south of Port Hedland.
I have published extensive archival evidence about the score of coverups that have occurred over the past 70 years.The cover-up
They range from the agreement of Prime Minister Menzies to the progressive testing of hydrogen/thermonuclear devices in preparation for the full assembly in 1957 for the Grapple tests at Christmas Island, including testing less than two months before the start of the 1956 Olympic Games in downwind Melbourne, and Menzies’ hope of getting tactical nuclear weapons for Australia by his collusion.
They also include the submission of ‘sanitised’ health data on Australian test participants to the 1985 Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia.I presented my concerns about the role of UK official histories of the tests in a seminar hosted by the Official Historian of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by invitation in February 2024.
Representing the victims, Oli Troen adds that “The Veterans previously sought redress through the English Courts, losing in the Supreme Court in 2012 when they could not prove they experienced dosages of radiation exposure. This meant they could not demonstrate their injuries resulted from that exposure.”
Blood tests taken at the time and in the years after presence at a test site are key to proving whether the legacy of rare illnesses, cancer and birth defects reported by the veterans is due to radiation from the nuclear tests and whether the government is culpable and can now be held accountable for their suffering.
A Freedom of Information tribunal has ordered the handing over of the blood tests of veteran and decorated hero Squadron Leader Terry Gledhill, who led ‘sniff planes’ into the mushroom clouds of thermonuclear weapons on sampling missions. This new case seeks to force the government to hand over such records for up to 22,000 UK veterans.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 
