Coalition’s nuclear plan will lead to ‘massive’ electricity shortages and risk blackouts, new analysis warns
Energy minister Chris Bowen says Peter Dutton must explain what happens to national grid over next decade if opposition stops building renewables
Guardian, Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, 20 Sept,24
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, released the findings of an energy department analysis that suggested electricity supply could be at least 18% less than what will be needed in 2035 under a scenario that reflects the few details of the Coalition plan that have been released.
Those details include the country building fewer solar and wind farms, the cancellation of the “rewiring the nation” policy to build transmission lines, extending the life of ageing coal plants and building nuclear plants at seven sites.
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
Under a scenario in which about 90% of remaining coal generation closes by 2035 – consistent with what the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) projects – the gap between demand and supply could be 49%, according to the analysis.
Bowen said it showed Peter Dutton would “take to our finely tuned electricity system planning with a sledgehammer” and cause “massive supply shortages over the next decade”.
“The question that Mr Dutton has to answer is: where would the electricity come from if we stop building renewables now and nuclear takes so long?” Bowen said at a media conference. “He wanders around making outrageous accusations about blackouts under this government when in fact it’s his own scheme [that] is the biggest risk to reliability in Australia.”
The analysis, released via an opinion piece in The Australian, is timed to precede a speech by Dutton on Monday on whether nuclear power could work in Australia.
Dutton and the opposition treasury spokesman, Angus Taylor, rejected Bowen’s analysis in TV interviews on Friday, but declined to release details of their proposal. Speaking on Sky News Australia, Taylor said Bowen was “full of nonsense” and Labor’s policies would “always cost Australians more than our alternative policies”.
The Coalition has said if elected it would use public money to build nuclear plants at seven sites. It has suggested it would also cap investment in large-scale renewable energy and back more gas, a fossil fuel responsible for 21% of Australia’s climate pollution.
It has not released the expected cost of the plants, explained how the Coalition would lift legislated bans on nuclear power, or said why he believed the first two plants could be operating by 2035 or 2037 – a much faster timeframe than experts say would be possible.
Government agencies and independent analysts have found nuclear and more gas would be more expensive for households and businesses than Labor’s plan of running on variable renewable energy backed by “firming” from batteries, pumped hydro, more transmission lines and some gas.
Aemo last month suggested the country’s main power grid, covering the five eastern states, would remain reliable as it shifted from running on mostly coal to mostly renewables if planned investments in new generation were delivered “on time and in full”. Bowen said this would not be possible under the Coalition’s plan……………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/20/coalitions-nuclear-plan-will-lead-to-massive-electricity-shortages-and-risk-blackouts-new-analysis-warns?fbclid=IwY2xjawFZ80RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRjcdt-9ZgyIv3BFzTaDCzbuWnZHwb4j4tAAT811vpZzm5UGVBP0h9xHpA_aem_LiV8Y3dC8T95lCzPdJNBHQ
Affordable nuclear? Dutton’s plan would add nearly $1,000 a year to the power bill of a family of four
Sophie Vorrath, Sep 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/affordable-nuclear-duttons-plan-would-add-nearly-1000-a-year-to-the-power-bill-of-a-family-of-four/—
A family of four in living on the east coast of Australia would pay nearly $1000 more a year for electricity under the federal Coalition’s nuclear power plan, a new report has found, while the average Australian household would see bills rise by $665 a year.
In a major new report, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, IEEFA, has undertaken to calculate the cost to consumers of Peter Dutton’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs).
This has already been done, to a fashion, by Australia’s main scientific body, the CSIRO, whose GenCost report in May of this year found large-scale nuclear to be at least double the cost of integrated renewables, and impossible to deliver before 2040.
IEEFA has taken a different tack, seeking to measure the cost of nuclear to “mums and dads,” by calculating the electricity bill impact of a range of scenarios, based on the actual costs of six recent projects in countries comparable to Australia.
For large-scale reactors the first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent, IEEFA says.
This includes the real-life projects – Finland’s Olkiluoto Unit 3, France’s Flamanville Unit 3, the US’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and the UK’s Hinkley Point C.
For SMRs – where, as IEEFA notes, “no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country” – costs are based on the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project.
It also used this approach to assess the costs to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a democratic country with laws protecting labour rights: the Czech Republic’s Dukovany proposed plant.
“In the international examples examined, the capital cost of nuclear power plants was very high – up to $90 billion,” says Johanna Bowyer, report coauthor and lead analyst for Australian electricity at IEEFA.
“Recent international large-scale nuclear projects have experienced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. Capital costs, excluding financing costs, of recent nuclear power station builds we analysed had blown out by a factor of 1.7 to 3.4 times.”
When extrapolated to the Australian market, results vary – the more than 50-page report provides precise details on the differences in bill increases depending upon which nuclear power project cost experience you consider, which state (South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales or south-east Queensland) and the size of the household.
But the bottom line is that, in every scenario, bills increase by hundreds of dollars and in some cases by more than $1000.
At the bottom end, the bill increase for households consuming a median amount of electricity was as low as $260 a year based on the anticipated cost of a new nuclear plant in the Czech Republic – although given that is a pre-construction project IEEFA says it is highly likely to have underestimate final costs.
The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is $383-$461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with the still under construction Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of up to $1,259 are possible.
Across all nuclear scenarios and regions, the report finds that for a four-person household the bill impact would average out at $972/year, and for a five-person household – like Peter Dutton’s – that figure would rise to an eye-watering $1,182/year.
Ultimately, it’s a finding that rather answers the question posed by next week’s CEDA luncheon discussion: “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?”
“For nuclear power plants to be commercially viable without government subsidies and generating 24/7 – as the Coalition proposes – electricity prices would need to rise to these higher levels to allow the nuclear power plants to recover their costs,” says Bowyer.
“This would result in a large increase in wholesale market prices which would then flow through to household bills,” Bowyer says. “In a cost-of-living crisis, bill increases like this are a big deal.”
But what about those countries that use nuclear and have lower retail electricity prices than Australia? Aren’t they proof positive that nuclear power is affordable?
Nice try, but no, says IEEFA. “In almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power,” the report says.
“This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada.
“The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return.”
Tristan Edis – a director at energy advisory firm Green Energy Markets and a contributor to the IEEFA report – says the mistaken perception that nuclear is a cost-effective technology is often based on the fact that it is in use across the globe.
But he says most of the plants built in the western world were committed based on projected costs and timeframes that turned out to be “horrible underestimates” that have cost governments dearly.
“They almost make Snowy 2.0 look good by comparison,” Edis says, referring to the federal government-owned 2.2GW pumped hydro project whose original price tag of $2 billion has ballooned to a massive $12 billion and is running seven years behind schedule.
“The end result has often been bankruptcy and taxpayer-funded bail-outs for many of the firms involved,” Edis adds, citing the examples of Ontario’s publicly owned utility, for Westinghouse with its AP1000 design, and for France’s AREVA and EDF.
“These cost blow-outs are sometimes not apparent in the electricity prices seen in other countries, but that’s just because it is the taxpayer picking up the tab instead,” he says.
In the case of Australia, the Coalition has repeatedly ruled out taxpayer subsidies for its nuclear plans, and repeatedly claimed that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return.
Take shadow treasurer Angus Taylor’s comments to the National Press Club in May:
“The key for me as someone who really believes that we should make sure that we have affordable, reliable power, and I don’t want to commit subsidies that aren’t necessary, is to make sure that it’s [nuclear power] commercially viable, and we think it can be. … If it’s commercially viable, it’s not going to be
subsidies. It’s as simple as that.”
As the report notes, this line of logic implies that the Coalition expects wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return.
Further, these nuclear power plants would be “always on,” which means power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.
And the only way this can be achieved without substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies is for household power bills to rise significantly, says Bowyer.
“Our analysis indicates that the Coalition’s plan is unlikely to represent a realistic cost-effective energy solution for Australia,” she says.
“Any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia … should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.”
Jewish Council disappointed at Australia’s UN abstention, calls for strong international action to prevent Israeli war crimes
By Jewish Council of Australia, September, 19, 2024
The Jewish Council of Australia says it is deeply disappointed at Australia’s abstention from a critical United Nations General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months. The resolution passed with 124 votes in favour, highlighting global frustration with Israel’s actions.
In a statement, the JCA said Australia’s abstention did not align with its commitments to international law and peace-building. While the Australian Government had indicated support for many aspects of the resolution, its failure to vote in favour was s a missed opportunity to show stronger, principled leadership, the Jewish group said.
“This vote comes at the same time as further apparent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, a day after the pager attacks,” a statement from the JCA said.
“The Jewish Council of Australia condemns these attacks. Their indiscriminate nature, killing dozens and injuring thousands of civilians, is an apparent war crime which underscores the urgent need for a collective international response to prevent Israel further breaching international law.
“We call on the government to join with other countries in condemning the killing of innocent civilians, and reiterate our calls for Australia to take material action by imposing sanctions and throwing its weight behind a global arms embargo.
JCA executive officer Sarah Schwartz said:
“We condemn the loss of any innocent life. Australia and the international community must take material steps to prevent, and ensure accountability for, the commission of war crimes. These indiscriminate attacks, which have killed innocent bystanders, are the behaviour of a rogue state and should be treated as such.”
JCA executive officer Dr Max Kaiser added:
“We urge the Australian government to join the vast majority of countries in the international community that are taking a firm stance. Australia can and should be doing more to hold Israel accountable for its unlawful presence in Palestinian territories. The time for decisive action is now.”
Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills
Report Nuclear Electric Grid Energy Policy Australia
September 20, 2024, Johanna Bowyer and Tristan Edis, https://ieefa.org/resources/nuclear-australia-would-increase-household-power-bills
Key Findings
Typical Australian households could see electricity bills rise by AUD665/year on average under the opposition Coalition’s plans to introduce nuclear to the country’s energy mix.
IEEFA analysed six scenarios based on relevant international examples of nuclear power construction projects; in every scenario, bills increased by hundreds of dollars.
For households that use more electricity, bills could rise more – for a four-person household, the bill rise was found to be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and regions.
The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.
Australia’s main federal opposition, the Liberal-National Coalition, has proposed building seven nuclear power plants across the country, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). This report seeks to detail the likely impact on household consumers’ electricity bills from such a plan, based on recent real-world experience from construction costs for nuclear power plants around the world.
Rather than use theoretical projected costs, we have calculated the potential electricity bill impact for a range of nuclear cost recovery scenarios, based on the following real-world examples:
Finland: Olkiluoto Unit 3. France: Flamanville Unit 3. UK: Hinkley Point C. US: Vogtle Units 3 and 4.US SMR: NuScale SMR. Czech Republic: Dukovany proposed plant expansion.
The first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent. Commenting on nuclear construction cost estimates, electricity market economist Professor Paul Joskow states: “The best estimates are drawn from actual experience rather than engineering cost models.”
In the case of SMRs, no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country, so we instead used the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project. We also used this approach for assessing the costs for a proposal to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a separate democratic country with laws protecting labour rights, outside of its country of origin – the Czech Republic.
Household electricity bills impact
We found that electricity bills would need to rise in order for nuclear costs to be recovered. The chart below illustrates the resulting increase in typical household power bills if nuclear power plants with similar costs and characteristics to the international examples were built in Australia. The average bill increase was AUD665/year across states and nuclear scenarios for households with a median level of electricity consumption. The lowest impact is equivalent to bill increases of AUD260-AUD353 per year, linked to estimated costs for the pre-construction project Dukovany, which is highly likely to underestimate final costs. The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is AUD383-AUD461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of more than AUD1,000 per year are possible.
Figure 1 [on original]: Increase in typical household electricity bill to recover cost of nuclear plants based on different countries’ experience (AUD/year)
The range of costs is wide due to the significant cost differentials for large-scale nuclear in different countries, and the significant cost uncertainty for SMR technology, which is still under development. The impact in each state can vary due to differing typical electricity consumption levels in each state, and different electricity bill cost structures.
For households using more electricity than the median level, the bill increases from nuclear would be higher. For example, for a four-person household the bill impact would be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and states, and for a five-person household AUD1,182/year.
How nuclear costs are reflected on electricity bills
These results might come as surprising to some, because large-scale nuclear is a mature technology currently in use across a wide range of countries. In addition, misinterpreted data on retail electricity prices (which also include the costs of powerlines and taxes, not just generators and so is misleading) can show some cases of nations that use nuclear who have lower retail prices than Australia.
However, in almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power. This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada. In other jurisdictions, such as a number of US states including Georgia where the Vogtle power plant is located, there isn’t actually an electricity market in operation, with consumers instead served by a regulated monopoly without any competitive choice.
The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return. This implies that the Coalition expect that wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return. The Coalition has also outlined that these nuclear power plants would operate at full capacity almost all of the time. Therefore, power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.
High costs of recent nuclear projects
The reason bills increased in this study is because recent large-scale nuclear projects across Europe and North America involved very high costs. The European Pressured Reactor (EPR) program had promised to deliver more efficient, safer nuclear power. However, the three recent projects (Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C), which have either just been completed or are under construction, have all faced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. If plants with similar costs and characteristics were built in Australia, they would require a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) between AUD250 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and AUD346/MWh to recover their costs.
A few other types of reactors are being built or considered internationally of a similar design to what the Coalition indicates might be built in Australia: the South Korean APR1000 design proposed at Dukovany in the Czech Republic; and a Westinghouse AP1000 design recently completed at Vogtle in the US. The Vogtle plant experienced seven years of delays and actual capital costs (excluding financing costs) 1.7 times the original estimates. Those plants present LCOEs of between AUD197 and AUD220 per MWh in an Australian context – noting the Dukovany costs are only initial pre-construction estimates and could rise.
Based on NuScale, we estimate that the LCOE of nuclear SMR in an Australian context would be AUD289/MWh – but could be far higher if construction extends beyond the 3.25 years used in this study – as financing costs increase as construction timelines extend.
Capital costs (excluding financing costs) of recent nuclear power builds have tended to blow out by a factor of between 1.7 and 3.4, leading to financial difficulties for companies involved. All conventional nuclear projects built in recent years in the US and Europe – Vogtle, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C and Flamanville 3 – have contributed to financial difficulties for companies involved. Westinghouse, which was the technology provider for Vogtle, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. France’s AREVA, who was the original technology provider for Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C, came close to bankruptcy over 2015, which required a French Government-sponsored bail-out.
The chart below [on original] details the wholesale market prices required for each of the recently constructed or quoted nuclear plants to be commercially viable, relative to the current wholesale electricity costs being passed through in household electricity bills in the regions of Victoria, NSW, South East Queensland (SEQ) and South Australia (SA).
[Figure 2: Current wholesale energy cost (WEC) component of current household bills compared to commercial price to recover nuclear plant costs in Australian context (AUD/MWh)]
Australia would likely face even higher large-scale nuclear costs than these recent international examples, due to the country’s limited nuclear capability and the small size of any potential Australian nuclear build-out program. With seven nuclear power stations proposed (two of them SMR-only), all at separate sites, there will be limited scope to achieve learning-based cost reductions like those seen in a large continuous build program, for example the build program in South Korea on which CSIRO’s GenCost costings are based. South Korea has built 26 reactors since the 1970s. Further, the assumptions in this report have provided an optimistic levelised cost of electricity for nuclear, for example using a 60-year economic lifetime, 93% capacity factor, and a low discount rate.
Our analysis suggests household power bills would need to rise significantly for nuclear power plants to become a commercially viable investment in the absence of substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies. In IEEFA’s opinion, any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia – such as that proposed by the Coalition – should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.
Peter Dutton is about to talk nuclear at CEDA. Will he be fact checked by Chris Uhlmann?
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Giles Parkinson, Sep 19, 2024
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen calls it the great distraction. Virtually everyone in the electricity market calls it a nonsense, but Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s efforts to put the nuclear debate on centre stage appears to be gaining traction.
On Monday, Dutton takes his nuclear campaign, complete with obvious untruths and exaggerations, to the august environment of the Committee For Economic Development of Australia. The event, on Monday, is titled “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?
CEDA was established in 1960 to “better understand and interrogate public policy” and says it remains independent and not restricted by vested interests or political persuasion. It should, in that case, be the perfect place for Dutton’s nuclear claims to be fact-checked.
Dutton has so far revealed little about his nuclear policy, apart from a vague plan to build reactors, both large-scale and the yet-to-be-commercialised small modular reactors (SMRs) at seven sites across the country where coal fired power stations have or still do operate.
The premise, according to the Coalition, is simple. Just build them and plug them in where there is an existing grid connection, and Australians will be protected from the lights going out and the economy being sent back to the dark ages, something it insists will be the result of Labor’s renewable energy roadmap.
It’s not clear how much more Dutton will tell CEDA about the details of the nuclear plan. He has insisted that the first reactors could be up and running and producing power by 2035 – a fanciful idea according to the regulators and other experts who point out that the late 2040s might be closer to the mark.
Dutton insists that nuclear is essential for the net zero target. It might be for other countries, particularly those with inferior solar resources and a well-established nuclear industry, but for Australia that claim is a nonsense.
The clear intention of the Coalition to slow, even stop, the rollout of new wind, solar and battery storage projects, extend the life of ageing coal generators and invest heavily in new gas – all of which will blow Australia’s emissions budget over the coming decades. It is difficult to think of a worse idea if climate change is the motivation.
Dutton has been regularly fact-checked on a number of other claims both here, and on the Guardian – less so, if not at all, in the rest of mainstream media and on radio and TV, where the claims are often broadcast. It hasn’t deterred him.
It includes the claim that Labor is looking to build 28,000 km of transmission lines to support its green energy transition. Not true. it has only targeted little more than 5,000kms.
The 28,000 km is a target under the most optimistic green energy scenario – it was developed by the Australian Energy Market Operator in its modelling under the previous Coalition government, and has changed little since then.
Dutton claims that nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar and storage. Again, not true and not by a long shot, according to recognised and respected Australian and international experts – all of whom have come under fierce attack by the Coalition and its attack dogs on social media.
It includes the claim that nuclear leads to lower power bills for consumers. But that only happens when the nuclear power is heavily subsidised, as it is in France, and when consumers are protected from market forces.
Ontario is often cited by the Coalition as having cheaper electricity prices than Australia, but they forget to tell you Ontario’s electricity prices are significantly higher than other Canadian provinces, thanks to nuclear.
Australia’s bills are weighed down by the cost of networks, servicing a population nearly twice the size of Ontario in a land are more than seven times bigger.
Dutton’s claim that nuclear can be plugged in to existing power grids without the need for upgrades is also nonsense. Most of those sites already have replacement capacity – Port Augusta and Collie in particular, and the site owners at Liddell, Mt Piper and Loy Yang have their own plans that definitely do not include nuclear.
The Coalition and their choristers also insist that nuclear somehow requires no additional back-up. That would be a miracle. All forms of generation require back up to ensure the lights stay on in case of an unexpected outage, or planned and long term maintenance.
Nuclear is no exception – it was the cause of massive amounts of pumped hydro being built around the world, in France, the Americas and China – and the size of its units at large scale mean additional measures are needed should the units go offline, even if the cause is as mundane as a tree falling across power lines.
Dutton insists that nuclear is attractive because it is “baseload” and “always on.” But modern grids demand flexibility, and none more so than Australia where – because of its excellent solar resources, the falling cost of PV and the high retail prices – more rooftop solar has been installed per capita than anywhere else in the world.
That rooftop PV is already causing problems for the existing “baseload” generators – coal and gas: It destroys their business models, and is technically challenging. The economics of nuclear relies more than any other on being “always on”.
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Dutton’s event will be compered by Chris Uhlmann, the former ABC political editor who became an instant “expert” in grids and renewables when he seized on the South Australia state-blackout and blamed it all on wind energy, even though multiple reports from regulators and energy experts have shown that not to be the case.
Will Uhlmann fact-check Dutton in the way that CEDA might expect? Uhlmann has spent much of his time since joining Sky News and The Australian earlier this year attacking the same targets as the Coalition – the IPCC, climate science itself, emissions targets, and the transition away from fossil fuels.
One of his more egregious pieces was an attack last month on a research report “Fossil Fuels are a Health Hazard” that was put together by the Doctors for the Environment Australia. Uhlmann’s piece in the Weekend Australian was titled “Fossil fuel bans are hazardous to our health”.
It included claims by Uhlmann that products such as panadol and soap depend on fossil fuels. Nonsense, the doctors wrote in response: These products might source fossil fuels now, but they don’t need to. No, we can’t stop using fossil fuels overnight, but we can phase them out very quickly.
The promotion of nuclear and fossil fuels, and attacks and the downplaying of climate science often go hand in hand. Will that be the case at CEDA next week?
As Nicholas Talley and Kate Wylie wrote in the excellent Croakey:
“Journalists have an opportunity to raise public awareness of climate change, using their power to encourage transformative action on what is termed the defining story of our time. They have a responsibility to ensure their coverage is evidence based and reports on the very real scientific and health warnings.”
Monday’s event should be very interesting.
The UK’s nuclear waste problem
“more nuclear power means more nuclear waste”
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK, 16 Sept 24 https://theweek.com/environment/the-uks-nuclear-waste-problem
Safety concerns as ‘highly radioactive’ material could be buried in the English countryside
“Not in my backyard” is a term normally used in conversations about proposed new housing or rail lines, but a version of it could soon be heard about one of the most dangerous materials on the planet.
Nuclear power stations are filling up with radioactive waste, so “swathes” of the highly dangerous material are set to be “buried in the English countryside”, said The Telegraph. For local communities, it isn’t so much “not in my backyard” as “not under my backyard”, said the Financial Times.
‘100,000 years of hazard’
Sellafield, in Cumbria, is the “temporary home to the vast majority of the UK’s radioactive nuclear waste”, said the BBC, “as well as the world’s largest stockpile of plutonium”. It’s stuck there because no long-term, high-level waste facilities have been created to deal with it.
The “highly radioactive material” releases energy that can infiltrate and damage the cells in our bodies, Claire Corkhill, professor of radioactive waste management at the University of Bristol, told the broadcaster, and “it remains hazardous for 100,000 years”.
The permanent plan to handle the waste currently at Sellafield is to first build a designated 650ft-deep pit to store it. Although the contentious matter of its location has yet to be agreed, the facility will hold some of the 5 million tonnes of waste generated by nuclear power stations over the past seven decades. Then, in the second half of the century, a much deeper geological disposal site will be dug, which will hold the UK’s “most dangerous waste”, such as plutonium, said The Telegraph.
The problem is only going to get bigger because nuclear power is a central part of the government’s mission for “clean power by 2030” and “more nuclear power means more nuclear waste”, said the BBC.
With at least three new nuclear power stations planned, said The Telegraph, the country will quickly be “at odds with” the 1976 review of nuclear waste policy by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which warned the UK was amassing nuclear waste so fast that it should stop building reactors until it had a solution.
‘Poison portal’
Some believe part of that solution will be found overseas. Earlier this year, there were warnings that Australia could become a “poison portal” for the UK and US as a result of a new three-nation defence pact called Aukus. The original wording of the agreement would allow for facilities to be created to dispose of waste from “Aukus submarines”, which could have included UK and US vessels.
Dave Sweeney, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner, warned at the time that Aukus partners could see Australia as “a little bit of a radioactive terra nullius”.
After pushback, the Australian government added a loophole to the legislation to “ensure Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste”, said The Guardian.
But the Australian Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the changes did not go far enough. The amendment only addresses high-level radioactive waste, he said, and “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
Hidden costs? Cheaper energy? ‘Farcical’ locations? Debunking the hype around nuclear
29 June 2024 , By Charis Chang, SBS News
Seven nuclear power plants could be built in Australia if the Coalition wins the next election, but will they live up to the hype?
Australians are being promised a brighter future with nuclear as the answer to rising energy costs.
As concerns grow over the cost of living and rollout of renewables, the Coalition has announced an alternative vision, promising to build seven nuclear power plants across the country if elected.
Last week, it confirmed it would push for nuclear power plants to be built at Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in South Australia, Loy Yang in Victoria and Muja in Western Australia.
“We have a vision for our country: to deliver cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity,” Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on 19 June.
But can nuclear in Australia live up to the hype?
Can nuclear bring down electricity prices?
One of the biggest claims the Coalition makes is that
nuclear energy could bring down the price of electricity
in Australia.
Dutton told the Today show on 21 June: “In Ontario, for example — they have 60 per cent nuclear in the mix there, their electricity prices are a quarter of what it is here in Australia”.
But Tim Buckley, director of think tank Climate Energy Finance, questioned how a form of energy that would produce “zero” electricity for the next 15 to 20 years, could bring down power prices.
In the meantime, the Coalition’s plan would undermine investor confidence so Australia didn’t get as much electricity supply from other sources, Buckley said.
“Less supply means higher prices — that’s economics 101.”
He believes the Coalition’s nuclear strategy could increase electricity prices by 20-50 per cent over the next decade because of the need for more government intervention and funding to extend the life of coal plants.
Buckley said the GenCost report — produced by Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO — found power from nuclear could also be double the price of firmed renewables.
“Therefore power prices go up, not down,” he said.
GenCost looked at the levelised cost of electricity, which is the estimated price that would need to be charged so the generator could cover its costs including a return on investment.
It found electricity generated by large-scale nuclear would be $155/MWh (per megawatt hour) to $252/MWh.
Integrating renewables such as solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind into the grid, including the cost of storage and transmission lines, was estimated to be much cheaper, costing between $90/MWh and $100/MWh.
The GenCost report noted overseas electricity costs may not reflect the prices that could be charged in Australia because of differences in installation, maintenance and fuel costs.
Other countries may also be benefiting from older projects where the costs to build the power plant had already been recovered by investors or governments.
“Such prices are not available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia,” the report said.
Batteries will need to be ‘ripped down’ for nuclear
The Coalition plans to locate its nuclear power plants in the locations of old and retiring coal-fired power plants to “avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ system”.
An electricity grid with a large proportion of intermittent renewables requires many new transmission poles and wires, “all of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills”, Opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien has said.
But Buckley points out that most retired coal-fired power sites are already being used for new battery plants. This includes a 500-megawatt battery plant announced last year on the site of the old Liddell plant in NSW’s Hunter Valley.
Ted O’Brien and Peter Dutton are proposing nationalisation of private assets, and then they’re going to have to rip down the batteries that have just been built at billions of dollars in cost … in order to then wait for 20 years while they build their nuclear power plants,” he said.
“It’s a little bit farcical to me.”
An ambitious 13-year timeline
In a press release announcing its policy, O’Brien said large-scale nuclear would be built by 2037, in 13 years.
But the CSIRO has estimated a nuclear power plant in Australia would take at least 15 years to build.
Australia’s federal nuclear ban would have to be overturned and the government may also have to override several state-level bans
Site selection and acquisition, design, impact studies and environmental permits would then need to be completed before construction could even begin.
Buckley said getting the relevant planning approvals was a time-consuming hurdle for any energy project, let alone one that had never been done in Australia before.
Nuclear ‘will need to be refurbished after 30 years’
Dutton has said nuclear is “an investment for 80 years” and this longevity makes the technology superior to renewable sources of power such as wind energy.
“These nuclear plants can produce and provide 24/7 power for 80 to 100 years … wind turbines last 19 years, so you’ve got to cycle them in and out three or four times,” he told the Today show on 21 June.
Buckley said Coalition statements underestimated the life of renewable projects, noting that nuclear power plants needed to be refurbished after around 30 years.
Warranties on new solar modules now covered them for more than 20 years, he said. And those on batteries had doubled from 10 to 20 years.
“Most solar projects have a design life of 25 years, wind projects have a design life of 30,” he said.
Buckley said the price of refurbishment should also be included in the capital costs for nuclear, and so should decommissioning expenses, which can cost about $10 billion once the plant reaches the end of its life.
‘Who’s going to pay for other costs?’
Eventually, funding will also have to be found to store the nuclear waste generated, which has to be securely stored for tens of thousands of years.
“Who’s going to pay for 10,000 years of nuclear waste disposal?” Buckley said.
Even based purely on the initial construction cost, nuclear does not come out ahead.
Who’s going to pay for 10,000 years of nuclear waste disposal? Tim Buckley, Climate Energy Finance director
The GenCost report estimated the cost of a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia would be $8.6 billion for a 1,000kW plant built in 2023, although the first one would likely be much more expensive.
A small modular reactor (SMR) was estimated to be even more expensive, at $28.6 billion.
In comparison, onshore wind is estimated to cost $3 billion for 1000kW of generation, while large-scale solar PV is even cheaper, at $1.5 billion.
Costs for offshore wind rise to between $5.5 billion and $7.7 billion.
The capital cost for firming technologies such as batteries is separate, but — as mentioned above — the levelised cost of renewables is estimated to be $90-$100/MWh, even including the cost of storage and transmission lines.
Meanwhile, the levelised cost of nuclear is between $155-$252/MWh.
The Coalition hasn’t yet released costings for its nuclear plan, only saying they would come “very soon”.
Analysis from the Smart Energy Council suggests it could cost between $116-$600 billion to build seven nuclear reactors, and they would only supply 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy mix in 2050.
Michael Preuss, director of research infrastructure at Monash University’s faculty of engineering, has previously told SBS News that while the initial investment in nuclear is expensive, those upfront costs could be recovered.
“There’s a huge upfront investment and once they’re built and they start operating, they’re relatively inexpensive to operate and then you recoup the investment. But it takes a long time,” he said.
There will also be ongoing costs to buy the fuel required to run the nuclear power plant, something renewables can source for free.
Australian communities facing an un-insurable risk?
The Coalition has dismissed concerns about government funding of the plants, saying local communities would welcome the investment.
“You can imagine what this means to local communities, to mums and dads and their kids as they look to the future,” O’Brien told reporters on 19 June.
But Buckley said government funding was required because nuclear power plants were not commercially viable without taxpayer subsidies. He said no private company could afford the insurance risk of a nuclear catastrophe………………………..
Is the world embracing nuclear?
Dutton told Today on 21 June: “I think if you look at the top 20 economies of the world, Australia is the only one that hasn’t embraced or hasn’t signed up to nuclear.”
But Buckley believes this statement is misleading.
“America has closed more nuclear units in the last two decades than they’ve opened so how is that embracing nuclear?”……………………………………………………….
He said other countries that had embraced nuclear did not have the wind and solar resources that Australia did.
“Why would Australia go and choose the most expensive source of electricity with massive water consumption issues, with massive site rehabilitation and massive waste disposal risks, when we don’t need to?
“When there’s a lower cost, commercially proven technology today?” https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/hidden-costs-cheaper-energy-farcical-locations-debunking-the-hype-around-nuclear/7rd5ewmbr
David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?
Federal Labor has failed to inform the SA community of the Health risks they face in imposed N-Subs at Port Adelaide and failed to carry out required nuclear accident Health Impact Studies.
AUKUS aims Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand N-Subs that are to be up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes that are also weapons usage fissile materials – and remain as Bomb Fuel long after decommissioning.
AUKUS will aim to compulsorily acquire and declare a High-Level nuclear waste dump site, with override of State laws through this Bill, long before the 2032 first purchase of a second-hand US N-Sub.
This Inquiry should respect and investigate the ‘Right to Know’ of affected Communities and Indigenous People facing federal imposed nuclear risks in an AUKUS Agreement requiring HighLevel nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities:
It is not credible for the JSCT to over rely on an AUKUS proponent in Defence Minister Marles.
Submission no. 154
Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the AUKUS 2.0 Agreement:
‘Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion’.
Public Input by Mr David J. Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner 1 September 2024 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
RE: National Interest, Public Safety and Indigenous Consent are compromised as the Agreement imposes N-Subs risks and untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on all future generations of Australians
Dear Secretary
This Inquiry into ‘the Agreement’ (Washington, dated 4 August) goes to fundamental matters of public interest through the powers, imprimatur and pathway this AUKUS Agreement provides to an unfolding Federal Labor agenda to impose nuclear powered submarine (N-Subs) risks and nuclear reactor wastes (N-wastes), with serious consequences for Civil Society and Indigenous People in Australia.
Please consider this Public Submission, the Recommendations provided (see p.10-12) and Discussion (p.13).
I also request an opportunity to give Evidence as a Witness in a Hearing (see my Relevant Background, p.14).
This public input focuses on serious N-Sub reactor accident risks and N-waste impacts due to this AUKUS Agreement:
First: N-Subs inherent nuclear reactor accident risks & impacts are imposed on Australian Port communities without their informed consent, while the US is granted Indemnity.
Port communities face Evacuation and persons may require ‘decontamination’ and medical treatment, while children require Stable Iodine Tablets to lessen the risk of Thyroid cancer.
Second: untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile materials are recklessly imposed as an uncosted liability on all future generations.
Continue readingThe Public Interest and Indigenous Rights in South Australia must not be compromised by an untenable Defence imposition of AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on the Woomera Area
David Noonan’s Submission to the Review of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coexistence Framework
30 August 2024
Contents:
Introduction
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
3 There is an onus on this Woomera Area Review to see it doesn’t add to a sad history of nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests in our State.………………….
4 Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump …………………..
5 Defence is already targeting the Woomera Area as a potential region to site an imposed
AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump ……………………………….
6 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes …………………….
7 Is US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera? ……………………………
8 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks ……………….
9 Recommendations
10 Discussion
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war
11 As to my Relevant Background
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
Minister Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early 2024, on
a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he saying
“obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the
‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as
national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).
Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal
site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
This Review must respect the SA public and Traditional Owners rights to full disclosure of
potential nuclear risks and impacts in advance of any decisions, legislation and process to
impose AUKUS N-waste onto community in the Woomera Area or anywhere else in SA.
Defence can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ to operate in the Woomera Area while failing to
inform affected community of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the cultural and environmental impacts,
and socio-economic impacts they may face through siting for AUKUS nuclear waste storage.
Defence has so far denied South Australians their ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
The Woomera Area Review must understand that South Australians will not accept federal
Labor and Defence undemocratic imposition of AUKUS nuclear wastes in our State.
If federal Labor go ahead with storage of AUKUS nuclear wastes in SA, it will have to over-ride
State Law to impose the dump. AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Safety of the People of SA.
Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the Safety and Welfare of the people of
South Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Reforming Defence Legislation Review also proposes to take on Defence Act powers to
override State legislation to ‘provide certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities. My
input and Recommendations to the Defence Review called for transparency on these issues:
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste
disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence must declare whether
the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be respected OR is intended to
be over-ridden to impose a Navy High-Level nuclear waste storage or disposal site on
‘remote’ lands and unwilling community in South Australia. (April 2023, p.7 & Rec 6-7)
I refer the Review’s consideration to “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons from
Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific
Leadership Network (January 2024). The Defence AUKUS agenda needs to learn these lessons…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Recommendations
These Recommendations No.1-5 comprise public interest disclosures that must be required
from Defence to facilitate an informed public Review of the future of the Woomera Area:
Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump
This Review must respect affected Communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the
Defence imposed nuclear risks they face in intended High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear
weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities.
1.1 The Review must call on Defence to publicly disclose which Australian regions and
Indigenous Peoples are currently under threat of imposed siting and compulsory land
acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste dump, and which – if any – existing Defence
lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared.
1.2 The Review must make Defence become accountable over the future and fate of the
Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and
disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023). Noting the
Woomera Area is currently subject to a Defence ‘Review’: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose
and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – read AUKUS requirements.
1.3 Defence must become publicly accountable and declare its intension to over-ride the SA
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in an AUKUS Bill now before
Parliament (Sec.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws”): to impose an AUKUS nuclear
waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree in federal Regulations.
This Defence agenda to impose nuclear waste storage in SA also involves Defence over-ride of
the SA Environment Protection Act 1993 and over-ride of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
2 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes
The Woomera Area Review must respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick
Dodson and act in accordance with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov
2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
2.1 This Review must seek an explanation from the federal Labor Gov as to whether they will
commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands;
OR if Federal Labor intends to claim a sanction to over-ride UNDRIP and to impose a hazardous AUKUS nuclear waste dump against the potential express wishes of Traditional Owners.
3 US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera?
The Woomera Area Review must recognise the AUKUS Agreement’s proposed importation of US
origin military High-Level nuclear wastes sourced in 10–12-year-old US Navy nuclear reactors in
second hand US Virginia Class N-Subs that will require perpetual storage in Australia:
This Review must seek a full explanation of how Defence Minister Marles claims to be able
to manage a globally unprecedented task in siting and perpetual storage & disposal of
intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes from second-hand US Virginia N-Subs.
It is not credible for the Review to overly rely on claims by AUKUS proponent Minister Marles.
3.1 The Review should call on Minister Marles to explain the incompatibility between the AUKUS
Agreement’s transfer of US origin Virginia Class N-Sub nuclear wastes to Australia, effective
importation of nuclear wastes sourced from the US, and the pre AUKUS Federal Labor Policy
commitment in the ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) to oppose overseas waste:
Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear
waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
4 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks.
There is an onus on this Review to require public $ Costings and an evidentiary basis on:
- the liability $ Cost consequent in required capability and facilities for in perpetuity High-
Level nuclear waste storage and geological waste disposal at the Woomera Area; - whether the $ Cost of High-Level nuclear waste storage and claimed geological disposal
is included in – OR is additional to – the public Cost of AUKUS at approx. A$368 billion.
These unstated, kept secret, liability $ Costs must be in the order of at least A$10’s of billions.
4.1 In the public interest the Review must require a full exposition on the array of nuclear waste
risks the AUKUS Agreement exposes the Woomera Area to and grants the US Indemnity over.
“Indemnity 22. The Agreement requires Australia to indemnify the UK and the US
against any liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims) arising
out of, related to, or resulting from nuclear risks (risks attributable to the radioactive,
toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of materials) … transferred pursuant to the
Agreement (Article IV(E)).” (In the National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14)
5. The Review must be transparent on Defence’s roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
Our survival is at stake, ex-Ambassador to China, Ross Garnaut has stated (20 August 2024):
“America would be damaged by war with China over the status of Taiwan, but, short of a
major nuclear exchange debilitating both great powers, its sovereignty would not be at
risk. Australia’s would be. Indeed, I doubt that Australia could survive as a sovereign
entity the isolation from most of Asia that would be likely to follow anything other than a
decisive and quick US victory in a war in which our military was engaged.”
Discussion:
Defence imposed AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile
material on all future generations of Australians is untenable and will be opposed at Woomera.
This Review must at least be able to facilitate informed public consideration of the future of the
Woomera Area through required full disclosures from Defence to the set of pre-requisite public
interest Recommendations No.1-5 presented in this public input.
Australian regional communities and Indigenous groups have a ‘Right to Know’ who is being
currently targeted for siting and assessment of an AUKUS nuclear waste storage / dump.
The Review must realise an answer from federal Labor over whether the UNDRIP championed
by Senator Patrick Dodson will be complied with OR over-ridden to impose AUKUS N-wastes.
Three years into AUKUS the failure to respect affected communities ‘Right to Know’ is evidence
Defence is on a seriously wrong track and is undermining trust in governance in Australia.
There is an onus is on this Review to investigate the array of serious nuclear waste risks to be
imposed on Woomera through AUKUS and subject to an Indemnity to favour US interests.
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
It is arguable that AUKUS and N-Subs bring Australia closer to a devastating war between the
US and China, including likely strikes on Australia with a real risk of nuclear weapons strikes.
For instance, the Review should consider “AUKUS: The worst defence and foreign policy
decision our country has made” by ex-Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans (17 August 2024):
“… Four, the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear
propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high. Not
only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B52 base; not only the conversion
of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth now join Pine Gap
and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a nuclear target …
Australia’s no-holds-barred embrace of AUKUS is more likely than not to prove one
of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made, not only
putting at profound risk our sovereign independence, but generating more risk than
reward for the very national security it promises to protect.”…………………………………………………………..
FBI Sued For Withholding Files On Assange And WikiLeaks
Kevin Gosztola, Sep 12, 2024, https://thedissenter.org/fbi-sued-for-withholding-files-on-assange-and-wikileaks/
“With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people,” Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent.
The civil liberties organization Defending Rights and Dissent sued the FBI and United States Justice Department for withholding records on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
“For nearly a decade and a half, we’ve been trying to get at the truth about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks,” declared Chip Gibbons, the policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent.
Gibbons added, “With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people.”
On June 25, 2024, U.S. government attorneys submitted a plea agreement [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after Assange agreed to plead guilty to one conspiracy charge under the U.S. Espionage Act.
Assange was released on bail from London’s Belmarsh prison, where he had been jailed for over five years while fighting a U.S. extradition request. He flew on a charter flight to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory where a plea hearing was held.
The plea agreement marked the end of a U.S. campaign to target and suppress Assange and WikiLeaks that spanned 14 years and first intensified after WikiLeaks published documents from U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning that exposed crimes committed in U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as U.S. complicity in human rights abuses in dozens of countries around the world.
“As soon as we began publishing newsworthy stories about US war crimes in 2010, we know the US government responded to what was one of most consequential journalistic revelations of the 21st century by spying on and trying to criminalize First Amendment-protected journalism,” stated WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Hrafnsson continued, “While WikiLeaks has fought for transparency, the U.S. government has cloaked its war on journalism in secrecy. That’s why Defending Rights & Dissent’s lawsuit is so important, as it will help unmask the FBI’s efforts to criminalize journalism.”
On June 27, Defending Rights and Dissent requested [PDF] “all records created, maintained, or in the custody of the FBI that mention or reference: WikiLeaks; Julian Assange.”
The FBI separated the request into two requests—one for files mentioning “WikiLeaks,” one for files mentioning Julian Assange. And by August 19, the organization was informed by the FBI that it would take around five and a half years (2,010 days) to “complete action.”
Previously, on June 22, 2021, Defending Rights and Dissent submitted a nearly identical request. It took the FBI two years to respond and notify the organization that the documents could not be provided because there was a “law enforcement” proceeding that was pending against Assange.
The FBI became involved in pursuing an investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks in December 2010.
In 2011, FBI agents and prosecutors flew to Iceland to investigate what they claimed was a cyber attack against Iceland’s government systems. But as Iceland Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson told the Associated Press in 2013, it became clear that the FBI agents and prosecutors came to Iceland to “frame” Assange and WikiLeaks.
The FBI was interested in interviewing Sigurdur Thordarson, a serial liar and sociopath who embezzled funds from the WikiLeaks store and sexually preyed on underage boys. As I recount in my book “Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange,” Thordarson subsequently became an FBI informant or cooperating witness.
“When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police,” Jónasson added.
A little more than a year before the U.S. government’s prosecution against Assange collapsed, the FBI approached three journalists who had worked with Assange but had a falling-out with him. Each refused to help U.S. prosecutors further their attack on journalism.
“The decision to respond to reporting on U.S. war crimes with foreign counterintelligence investigations, criminal prosecutions, and dirty tricks continues to cast a dark shadow over our First Amendment right to press freedom,” Gibbons said.
Gibbons concluded, “We will work tirelessly to see that all files documenting how the FBI criminalized and investigated journalism are made available to the public.”
Albanese has a second chance with AUKUS
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters.
it is America which now sets our defence policy,
By Mike Gilligan, Sep 14, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/albanese-has-a-second-chance-with-aukus
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Minister RIchard Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
The weekend Sydney Morning Herald (7 September) front page said: “Australia key to new US security scheme” by Peter Hartcher in Washington.
Hartcher is known as part of the Herald’s China-threat scare in March 2023, telling Australians that we face war with China within three years. Today that leaves just 18 months at the outside before war breaks out. Clearly ill-founded, it was a sensationalist attempt to panic Australians into embracing America’s planning for conflict with China.
The Americans are still at it, of course. And Hartcher is their messenger – boasting that his access in Washington is special because his interview at the White House is the only one which President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has given to Australian media in his 3-1/2 years in the role. Hartcher followed up with another report a few days later explaining that the Americans are looking for another big technology project to foist on Australia. In a hurry, because progress against China has been too slow.
Sullivan wants the new scheme stitched up before Biden leaves office. And by the way, Australia must spend more on defence for its role against China.
America is accustomed to dealing with its allies in that way. Europe’s NATO forces always have been shaped by US close oversight. Its member states are regularly hectored to spend more on defence against a common enemy. Sullivan is treating Australia just as he would another NATO ally. Without a second thought. And Australia’s leaders have fallen into line obsequiously.
Again it has to be said – Australia is not like the NATO countries. NATO was set up in response to an agreed security threat, the USSR.
We have no security threat. No Australian Government has declared, much less demonstrated, that China is a security threat. We had decades of understanding with the United States that our defence spending should be directed to Australia’s own defence with our own forces. Without relying on America. In situations where Australia supported the US militarily overseas, it would be with forces which we held for our own priorities. Nothing special would be done for America. America agreed. That was Australia’s independence in action.
It worked for 35 years until President Barack Obama visited in 2010 effectively requiring Australia to do an about-face. Signalling that henceforth Australia’s defence would be done America’s way.
The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
It is Australia’s experience with the US itself which defines the risk. No need to look elsewhere for examples. Ever since the ANZUS treaty was signed in 1953, America has told Australia not to rely on it if attacked. Again in contrast to NATO, ANZUS deliberately avoids American commitment to assisting Australia if attacked. It was the proof of that American reluctance (over Indonesia) and the Vietnam tragedy which led to Australia facing reality – bipartisanly adopting a self- reliant defence policy in 1976. The risk of not embracing self- reliance was deemed intolerable. To not pursue self-reliance feckless. And that initiative came with America’s enthusiastic endorsement, for 35 years.
Today it suits America to use Australia’s forces for its own ends against China. Yet it won’t commit to our security by dignifying us with a genuine treaty. The obvious risk is that America’s interest in Asia will decline, for many reasons. Then Australia will be left with defences of little use for our own need. What good is an island-hopping army dependent on US Marines, who have gone home? It’s been said before. But the profound risk hasn’t sunk in.
At the business end, the Albanese Government is spending heavily to dump Australia ever deeper into the risk predicament. Marles flaunts the financial cost. Noting that the Defence budget was $48 billion in 2022-23, the Albanese Government will raise it to $55.7 billion in 2024-25:
“These increases will see annual Defence spending almost double over the next ten years to $100 billion in the financial year 2033-34. Taken over a 10-year period, it will be the largest sustained growth in the Defence budget since the Second World War.”
This is the spending which Sullivan says should be increased. Australia’s defence budget of $58 billion is the same as Japan’s, also accelerating because of US pressure.
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. Sam Roggeveen in his elegant essay “The Jakarta Option” describes the influences which render Marles’ strategy foolhardy. He presents evidence of a structural shift in warfare which renders maritime attack on an opponent’s territory increasingly hazardous. The exchange ratio of maritime forces to land-based weapons has swung heavily to the defender ie China in this case. Marles strategy of “projection” is squarely on the wrong side of this asymmetry.
So, what to do about this latest American “initiative”? Albanese tells the tale of having just one day to consider AUKUS when in opposition. He now has the full resources of Cabinet and can set his own timetable. He can require Marles to talk to the risks and costs to Australia of his National Strategy of power projection. And this latest directive from Washington. Ministers, especially the treasurer, should work through the risks, costs and consequences so that they genuinely know what Australia is being led into at vast cost.
Back to Hartcher. He unwittingly does us a service, demonstrating yet again that Australians have to rely on the candour of American leaders to see through the murky verbiage of Defence Ministers, confirming that it is America which now sets our defence policy, down to project detail. Hartcher will have something to brag about when he has the level of access in Beijing which he claims in Washington.
Labor claims Aukus nuclear waste dumping issue just a Greens scare campaign
the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
Legislation before Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated
Guardian, Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent, 13 Sept 24
The Albanese government has bowed to pressure to close an Aukus loophole, insisting that the newly revealed changes will ensure Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste from US and UK submarines.
The Greens argued the government’s latest amendments did not go far enough and it was becoming increasingly clear the Aukus security pact was “sinking”.
But Labor MPs later told the parliament Australia would not become “a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries” and argued such claims were part of “a scare campaign”.
The legislation before the Australian parliament covers the way the country’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be regulated. It includes the creation of a new statutory agency, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.
The bill – in its original form – talked about “managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an Aukus submarine”, which it defined broadly as Australian, UK or US submarines.
This prompted concerns from critics that the bill could pave the way for Australia to eventually store nuclear waste from other countries, regardless of a political commitment from the incumbent government not to do so.
In May, a Labor-chaired inquiry called for a legislative safeguard to specifically rule out accepting high-level nuclear waste from the US and the UK.
New amendments circulated by the government on Wednesday include a “prohibition on storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The wording says the regulator “must not issue a licence” for the storage or disposal in Australia “of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine”.
The government is also amending the bill to prevent appearances of conflicts of interest at the new naval nuclear safety regulator.
The legislation will ensure anyone who has worked in the Australian defence force or the Department of Defence in the previous 12 months cannot be appointed to be the director general or deputy of the new regulator.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, said the amendments would “reaffirm the government’s already-established commitment that Australia will not be responsible for the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the US, UK or other countries”.
He said the government would “continue to build the foundations to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”.
Greens say changes ‘far from clear’
But the Greens defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the amendments were “far from clear”.
“The Albanese Labor government tried to sneak through a loophole that would allow the UK and US to dump their nuclear waste in Australia,” Shoebridge said.
“We called the government out and people around Australia pushed back, now Albanese is quickly putting through a half-measure to shut everyone up.”
Shoebridge said the amendment did not specifically mention “high-level radioactive waste” and it “still allows the US and UK to dump intermediate-level waste, and Australian high-level waste, anywhere in Australia”.
“Everyone can see Aukus is sinking,” he said.
Matt Thistlethwaite, an assistant minister, said Australia would “not manage, store or dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the US or the UK submarines”.
He told the parliament’s federation chamber that the government’s new amendments were intended to “put the matter beyond doubt”.
A fellow Labor MP, Rob Mitchell, said: “We will not be, as some have suggested, a dumping ground for nuclear waste for other countries. And it’s important that we put that scare campaign to bed very quickly and very clearly.”……………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/11/labor-aukus-nuclear-waste-loophole-greens
Record weeks for renewables blow up Dutton’s nuclear con
The record high of low-cost wind and solar in the grid comes as we are still waiting for the costing on the Coalition’s plan to nationalise the eye-watering cost of seven nuclear plants.
Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 12 Sept 24, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/record-weeks-for-renewables-blow-up-dutton-s-nuclear-con-20240910-p5k9e4
It’s been a red-letter few weeks for renewables in Australia. In the last week of August, coal dropped below 50 per cent of electricity generation for the first time, as renewables’ share rose to a record high 48.7 per cent, boosted by windy conditions and low grid demand.
In August last year, coal contributed 57 per cent and renewable energy held a 37 per cent share
As in the US and Britain, where zero-emissions supply is burgeoning as fossil fuels’ contribution to generation falls, this threshold moment in Australia symbolises that the inevitable shift to clean energy is well under way and accelerating here and globally. China is deploying 23 gigawatts of renewables every month, four times what Australia does in a year.
The record-high renewable energy penetration in our national electricity market was accompanied by near record-low wholesale prices, averaging $57 per megawatt hour in the last week of August, versus $91 in August last year. This shows that more renewables equals cheaper power.
South Australia is the standard-bearer for Australia’s renewable energy future. In the past seven days, more than 75 per cent of its power use was generated by renewables, at average wholesale prices of just $37 per megawatt hour, way below the $123 average over the past year.
South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis has revised the state’s renewables target to 100 per cent by 2027, off the back of the continued rollout of clean energy infrastructure.
This includes three big batteries announced last week under Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s flagship Capacity Investment Scheme – a key driver of investment momentum underpinning the renewables build-out nationally – and major grid developments, with concomitant projected residential and business energy bill savings.
The federal government and its state counterparts are getting on with the job of accelerating our national energy transition, working to deliver the federal 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target and the resulting energy bill relief. The lower house passed the Future Made in Australia Act this week, key to the government’s vision for a renewables-powered economy.
Still no nuclear costings
Meanwhile, the federal Coalition continues to perpetuate its nuclear con, designed to blow up progress on the transformation of our energy system to low-cost, reliable firmed renewables and entrench decades more of volatile, expensive fossil fuel-based power while we wait … and wait.
Next week marks three months since Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and chief nuclear spruiker Ted O’Brien released their fact- and costings-free, one-page nuclear memo, effectively a note proposing to nationalise the eye-watering cost of construction of seven nuclear plants nationwide – in a country with zero history and expertise in nuclear power generation, on a timeframe that, by all expert accounts, will not result in any material delivery before the mid-2040s. We’re still waiting for their budget projections on this excuse for a policy.
Only this week, Dutton was reported as dismissing questions about budget impacts because he didn’t want to overload Australians with too much information, as the government released an ad citing calculation by industry body the Smart Energy Council that the nuclear energy build would cost up to $600 billion and add $1000 annually to household electricity bills.
Our estimate is that the public cost would be a minimum of $100 billion, and this would inevitably be taxpayer-funded because, unlike firmed renewables, into which private capital is increasingly flowing, there is zero investor interest in nuclear in Australia without massive government subsidies, risk transfer and guarantees.
The Coalition plan involves a fiscally negligent impost on consumers already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. The global history of huge cost blowouts and bailouts in every Western economy building nuclear exacerbates this, and should discourage even the most credulous believer.
This alone makes nuclear unviable here. But the clincher is ongoing generation costs feeding into retail prices. The 2024 GenCost report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator prices large-scale nuclear energy at $155 to $252 a megawatt hour. That is double their estimate of the cost of fully firmed renewable energy of $90 to $100, even after factoring in grid transmission, curtailment and battery firming costs.
The renewables surge is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Barnaby Joyce — nuclear energy not as cheap as he thinks it is
Independent Australia, By Belinda Jones | 14 September 2024,
Barnaby Joyce jumps on the nuclear energy bandwagon but gets his facts wrong, writes Belinda Jones.
THE COALITION’S NUCLEAR PLANS suffered another setback this week when it revealed that the Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, got key nuclear facts wrong in a recent debate.
As part of the annual Bush Summit, presented by Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting and News Corp, Joyce took part in a debate with Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean.
The Bush Summit has been an annual event on the bush calendar since 2019, which meets in rural and remote locations around the country and brings together leaders in politics, mining, agriculture and many other fields……………………………………..
Joyce had jumped on the nuclear energy bandwagon a few years earlier and has been there ever since. Joyce’s position was supported in 2019 with a push for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear energy by fellow National Keith Pitt and L-NP Senator James McGrath.
In 2022, Coalition donor Rinehart invested $60 million in Arafura Rare Earths. Arafura’s Nolans Project outputs involve exploration and processing of rare earths, including uranium ‘as a minor product’. A minor product that could be very lucrative if Australia had nuclear energy.
According to the Minerals Council of Australia ‘Australia’s uranium reserves are the world’s largest, with around one-third of global resources’, which might explain mining billionaire Rinehart’s embrace of nuclear energy as the transition away from coal continues…………..
Joyce’s passion for nuclear energy does beg the question — why didn’t the Coalition seize the opportunity to begin a transition to nuclear energy while they were in government from 2013 to 2022? One government minister said at the time it was because ‘financially it doesn’t stack up’.
In 2021, Morrison rejected nuclear energy because of a lack of bi-partisan support. Joyce revealed at the recent Bush Summit debate with Matt Kean that the real reason Morrison had rejected nuclear energy was because internal polling said nuclear energy was unpopular, as it still does, not because of a lack of bipartisan support.
During the recent Bush Summit debate, Joyce claimed that France and Finland’s energy is cheaper than Australia’s because they use nuclear energy.
This claim has since been fact-checked by AAP as wrong:
‘The National Party MP was responding to a suggestion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had driven up power prices globally.
When asked to provide evidence for the claim, Mr Joyce’s office sent AAP FactCheck an article from the Australian Energy Council comparing household electricity prices internationally.
The analysis is from February 3, 2022, which predates the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by three weeks.’
Currently, the Coalition has released scant details about their nuclear energy ambitions. In the absence of a clear, comprehensive, costed nuclear energy plan from which Coalition politicians can work, misinformation or disinformation is more likely to spread on the nuclear issue…………………………….
Joyce has become the self-appointed poster boy for groups opposing renewables, particularly the New England, Illawarra and Hunter regions. He will be a panelist on ABC’s Q and A next Monday. Advertised shuttle buses will likely be ferrying anti-renewables activist audience members from Muswellbrook and Port Stephens to the Newcastle studio. Joyce will be at his theatrical best, knowing he has an audience full of supporters………………………… more https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/barnaby-joyce–nuclear-energy-not-as-cheap-as-he-thinks-it-is,18977
Award-winning Australian film-maker David Bradbury detained in India (he exposed India’s repression of its peaceful anti-nuclear activists).
The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
David Bradbury 14 September 24
I flew from Bangkok to Chennai Tuesday night with my two children – Nakeita Bradbury (21) and Omar Bradbury (14).
We all have visas issued by the Indian Govt in Australia before we left Sydney, last Saturday, Sept 7th.
After three days in Bangkok we flew to Chennai to begin what was to be a family holiday to remember: five major tourist destinations in two weeks.
Accommodation and internal flights (non refundable…) booked in advance in several locations.
(In Bangkok I showed my latest doco – a tribute to Neil Davis who was tragically killed in a 24 hour coup in Bangkok 39 years ago. Death is a Lady was shown at the Foreign Correspondents Club and we raised $Aust407 for the children of Gaza).
Arriving at Immigration counter at Chennai airport, my two children got their passports stamped and were able to go through no problem. When it came my turn, the perplexed official had to call for help as he laboured over his computer terminal.
Putting in my details had obviously triggered alarm bells. He called for his Supervisor who similarly winced as he looked over his shoulder. It was
2am in the morning. My kids waited patiently on the ot her side of the glass barrier between us.
Eventually I was told it would not be possible for me to enter India. I asked why not? I had a legitimate visa I told them.
And my kids were on the other side of the barrier separating us.
We were here on a family holiday we’d planned and saved for many months. With the usual Indian courtesy of avoiding the question:
‘Why not? What is wrong with my visa..?’
My kids were on one side of the border…and I was on this side. I could not join them. As they waved sadly, reluctantly Goodbye to me, I was led off down a corridor to a small room with high ceilings. Pretty disgusting room with papers and rubbish on the floor under a bed which had a filthy mattress on it, no sheets. A metal grill window that looked out to a blank corridor wall.
Occasionally a guard would come and stare through it at me.
During the course of the rest of the day and into the night various Immigration
Plainclothes police would come and interrogate me. What was I doing in India? What did I do here before in previous visit in 2012? Who did I know here in India and who have you been talking to before I came to India this time. Can you open up your phone and give it to us, please? Can we have their phone number?
I was cold and asked for my long trousers and socks which were in my suitcase and some medication I was taking for an enlarged prostrate. They never got them for me, only an hour before they forced me back onto the flight to Bangkok. My bag still hasn’t arrived here in Bangkok.
I asked if I could make a phone call to the Australian embassy in Delhi but that request was ignored.
As the plane took off from Chennai yesterday morning for Bangkok at 1.30am, it hurt my world weary heart to accept being separated from my kids and our plans to have a grand tour of the Indian subcontinent which included going to Varanasi to show my Omar how Hindus deal with death and farewelling their loved ones into the next life.(Omar lost his mum, my wife to breast cancer five months ago. We both feel strongly attached to each other).
What had caused the cancellation of my Indian Visa? Over the course of the afternoon and being interrogated by Indian Immigration plainclothes, I quickly concluded the Indian Govt had not forgiven me for writing an article for my local newspaper back in Australia and daring to enter a ‘No-go’ zone for both Indian national press and foreign media like myself in 2012.
Back then after I’d done my duties on the jury of the Mumbai International film festival, with wife Treena (Lenthall) and son Omar, then aged 3, we went and stayed in a small fishing village on the southern most tip of India. At a village called Indinthakarai where thousands of locals led by Dr Udayakamur, Catholic priests and nuns. Since the 1980’s the good fisherfolk of Indinthakarai had maintained a David and Goliath struggle against the pro-nuclear designs of the central Govt in far away New Delhi.
These people embraced Treena, Omar and I because we felt for them in their struggle against the central Government 3,000kms away in New Delhi who had run roughshod over their rights and their community. We lived in the village for the next two weeks and filmed their everyday lifestyle, their fishing in the ocean which their livelihood depended upon. I interviewed their leaders on why they were so upset with the Government. One of them, a wonderful man called Dr Udayakamur stood out. He told me why they were determined to keep on with their struggle.
It was because their Government had signed a very dodgy deal with the Russians to build six nuclear powers plants on top of a major earthquake fault line. That faultline right where a cabal of corrupt senior Indian politicians and senior bureaucrats had signed the contract with the Russians had seen 1,000 villagers swept to their deaths when the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami hit.
He told me on camera how the humble fisherfolk of Idinthakarai
whose ancestors had ploughed the ocean for millennia;
How the Delhi Govt refused to have any community consultation and refused repeated requests by the people of Indinthakarai to be given access to environmental assessment reports.
Dr Udayakamur is an earnest practitioner of Gandhi’s non violent protest actions to effect Change.
The locals under Dr Uday staged sit-down protests where they buried their bodies in the sand up to their necks on the foreshore where the nuclear plants were being built. Thousands of people marched into the sea out front of the power plants defying police orders.
In the end their actions were in vain. The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
Dr Uday faces 58 criminal charges which includes ’Sedition’. He faces many years in gaol and long years before that in drawn out court proceedings. It has taken its toll on his health and his family.
All this happening out of sight of reporter’s notebooks and cameras in the world’s largest ‘Democracy’.
1 This month
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
