Chief scientist backs renewables, calls nuclear power ‘expensive’
Q+A / By Jason Whittaker 18 Mar 24
- In short: Chief Scientist Cathy Foley says nuclear energy is “expensive” and the energy debate must be guided by research.
- Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised the CSIRO, which says renewables like solar and wind are cheaper.
- What’s next? Retired Major General Gus McLachlan says the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines is a test of leadership.
Australia’s chief scientist has backed a renewables-led path to net zero emissions over the “expensive technology” of nuclear energy.
After the federal opposition puts nuclear-fired power generation back on the national agenda, Cathy Foley told Q+A that any assessment of energy sources should be guided by evidence.
“If you look at the reports that have been done, it’s [nuclear power] an expensive technology and it’s one where it would take some time to build up the capability to do that in Australia,” Dr Foley said.
“As chief scientist, it’s not for me to actually say what the government should do.
“What we should be doing is looking at the evidence and the information that is available and making sure that we make good decisions based on all the different things we have to take into account.”
Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton attacked research from the CSIRO on the higher cost of nuclear power over renewables such as solar and wind, prompting a public defence from the nation’s leading science institution.
“It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work,” Mr Dutton said on Friday, calling the research “discredited”.
In response, CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton said in a statement: “I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism.”
Dr Foley spent 15 years at the CSIRO before becoming the nation’s chief scientist.
Asked by Q+A host Patricia Karvelas if nuclear power should be on the table, she said: “I don’t think we should be making that decision without getting the information that’s needed.”
“So at the moment the plan is to be able to get to zero emissions using renewables and batteries …
“Australia has got a fantastic situation where we have so much energy from wind and solar that we should be making the most of that.
“We have the potential to have renewables based on solar panels and wind and batteries and that is the pathway that the government has been putting forward and is on a plan to get there by getting to zero emissions.”
The power of ‘little suns’
Leading American physicist Bryan Greene said nuclear is a “wonderful energy source” — but it’s the next generation of the technology (nuclear fusion) that offers the most promise.
“Once that is on the table, everything changes,” the Columbia University professor told Q+A.
“That will be the approach that will take over, say, from 2050 or 2060 onwards.”
Current nuclear fission technology — splitting large atoms to generate energy — leaves radioactive waste and the danger of reactor meltdowns……………………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/chief-scientist-cathy-foley-nuclear-expensive-backs-renewables/103602312
Dutton’s bid for nuclear power: hoax or reckless endangerment?
“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”
In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.
But beyond the tactics of Labor-baiting and the politics of diversion ……. lurks the original – and only – economic rationale of nuclear power – as an adjunct to a nuclear arms industry.
March 18, 2024, by: David Tyler https://theaimn.com/duttons-nuclear-dream-is-a-dead-cat-on-the-table-to-distract-us-from-his-dunkley-debacle/
It’s incredible. Such is our love-in with Peter “Junkyard” Dutton, our former Border Overlord, who used to play the bad cop dispensing rough justice–doing whatever it took to keep us safe-that today, he’s being cheered by most of the press gallery for reckless endangerment in his punt on nuclear energy.
Is it just to please his sponsor, Gina Rinehart and other richly attractive mining oligarchs who will make a few extra billion out of delaying the end of coal-fired power generation? Even if they do hasten the end of the world, they do get to star in their own perverted, planet-destroying mother of all snuff movies?
Or… brace yourself- does “Dutts” blunt truth and other fiction’s pin up boy-harbour
And what a boon for democracy. Voters choose between the pro-mining, colliery-opening, Labor Party and the pro-mining right-wing rump of a moribund Liberal Party, only in the race because of its secret agreement with the National Party, a mob of pro-mining, faux populists who pose as saviours of The Bush and its battlers, such as Riverview Old Boy, Barnaby Thomas Gerald Joyce’s Weatherboard Nine.
Or Bob Katter’s family which includes the incredibly successful arms manufacturer, son-in-law Rob Nioa.
ulterior motives?
Of course. A whiff of Emu Field, Montebello and Maralinga on the campaign trail helps with Coalition branding and product differentiation. “I’m with nuclear, stupid” would be a killer of an election slogan. Albo and Dutts could get together to whip up a referendum for the next federal democracy sausage BBQ. Besides, no-one in the nuclear power side hustle isn’t also itching to develop his or her own nuclear weapon cycle. Nuclear energy only makes sense if you are a nuclear arms manufacturer.
Nuclear is also a feint in the climate wars. Let’s talk tactics. Team Dutton can say that Labor is on the right track but has “no credible pathway” unless you have nuclear energy in the brew, firming up your mix. The Liberal Party plays the front end of the Coalition panto horse; the Nationals bring up the rear.
And just as he did after defeat in Aston, Dutton dashes into nuclear after his Dunkley debacle. Note he’s now a big reactor man, having got the email that small modular reactors are scarce as rocking-horse manure. It’s a revolutionary turn. A year or so ago, Dutts opposed, “the establishment of big nuclear facilities”. But being a conservative in Australian politics means, you don’t have to explain or apologise.
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Nor do you have to heed our scientists. “… the CSIRO has made clear, large reactors are too large for our small grids, and small reactors are still unproven commercially.”
Smear them. Say it’s a discredited study.
Sean Kelly sees Dutton’s pro-nuclear vision as a way of buying unity. Nobody on Dutton’s team thinks it’s a real policy, he claims, and it’s a long-term fantasy, so they won’t buck Dutton’s wilful stupidity. He’s sniping at CSIRO, too, which always wins friends amongst a growing anti-science brigade, a resource tapped into shamelessly by such figures as, “planter saint”, Barnaby Joyce; off his nut about the “green peril”. The former deputy PM also calls windmills, “filth” whilst renewable energy is a “swindle”.
The Coalition attack on CSIRO parallels its harassment of a now cowed ABC, on which it inflicted a barrage of criticism, funding cuts and Morrison’s captain’s pick of Ita Buttrose as chair. Cutbacks in the CSIRO have also taken their toll but their CEO, Professor Doug Hilton publicly rebukes Dutton.
“For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.”
Kelly might add that the Coalition is riven by at least ten factions, post-Morrison, and has rivals hatching plots of helping their leader by taking his job away from him. One of these, with some experience of edged weapons, is former SAS Patrol Commander, Captain Andrew Hastie who must have been cheered when in 2017 the AFP cleared of war crimes, an SAS soldier who cut the hands off two suspected Taliban fighters. Handy Andy was in command of some other soldiers at the scene. Hastie’s mentor is none other than party kingmaker, Big Mining Shill and fellow happy clapper, the Nationals’ John Anderson.
A spill now could avoid some bloodletting in the next federal election, a surgical strike, perhaps.
Rex Patrick sees Peter Dutton’s move as a “nasty” political wedge given that the federal Labor government has already signed us on to Morrison’s AUKUS which guarantees a small modular nuclear reactor inside a submarine moored near you if you happen to live close to HMAS Stirling Naval Base in Perth, the Osborne Naval Shipyards in Adelaide, SA or the yet to be opened mystery envelope containing only three options, Sydney Harbour, Wollongong/ Port Kembla or Newcastle.
Hint. The Royal Australian Navy berths in Sydney Harbour.
Moreover, the disposing of nuclear waste is also well in hand, notes Patrick.
“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”
In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.
Yet even today it’s uneconomic and fraught with a perplex of disposal and safety issues. Dutts the Kiwi Bikie Gangster Deporter, Dual Citizenship-Stripper, Dole-bludger-buster, or the African Gang vigilante; dog-whistling racism, fear and division, demonising the other, is as complex as the next bloke. But he is not a big ideas man. Fizza Turnbull has never heard Peter propose a single constructive idea.
Dutton’s mentor, John Howard was rarely troubled by big ideas either. But now, Dutton is calling for “a mature debate™” on a nuclear energy, we don’t need, can’t afford, could never rely on and can’t fuel. We’d be importing expensive fuel rods we can’t make at home for reactors which would never be built in time (without a slave labour workforce like the UAE) to replace our rapidly clapped-out coal-fired plant
Continue readingAustralia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade
AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors
Peter Hannam, Guardian. 19 Mar 24
Australia’s big private electricity generators have dismissed nuclear energy as a viable source of power for their customers for at least a decade.
They say they will remain focused on developing renewable sources as coal and gas plants exit the grid.
The comments – from AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy – follow an announcement by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Coalition would back both large-scale and small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as a way to cut electricity prices and increase grid reliability.
Energy Australia, whose Hong Kong-listed owner CLP currently operates two large nuclear power stations in mainland China, said the company was “committed to Australia’s clean energy transformation, reducing emissions as quickly and affordably as possible while maintaining system reliability”…………………………………………
NSW’s chief scientist, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, dismissed the comparisons by nuclear energy advocates of places such as Ontario, Canada. That country had spent decades building a nuclear industry employing 70,000 people.
“Nobody in this country has even the faintest idea how to build a nuclear power plant,” Durrant-Whyte, a former nuclear adviser to the UK government, told NSW upper house estimates earlier this month. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/19/australias-big-electricity-generators-say-nuclear-not-viable-for-at-least-a-decade
Turnbull says Australia ‘mugged by reality’ on Aukus deal as US set to halve submarine build
“Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”
Former PM says the reality is the US will not make their submarine deficit worse by giving or selling submarines to Australia
Amy Remeikis, Wed 13 Mar 2024 , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/turnbull-says-australia-mugged-by-reality-on-aukus-deal-as-us-set-to-halve-submarine-build
Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia has been “mugged by reality” over the Aukus submarine deal after the US announced it will halve the number of submarines it will build next year, throwing the Australia end of the agreement into doubt.
With the US president, Joe Biden, continuing to face a hostile Congress, the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025.
Under the Aukus agreement, production is meant to be ramped up to ensure Australia will have access to at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s. That is to fill a “capability gap” before nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide enter into service from the 2040s.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, played down the impact of the US budget announcement, insisting that “our plans are very clear”.
“We have an agreement that was reached with the United States and the UK,” Albanese told reporters in Darwin on Wednesday. “That legislation went through the US Congress last year. That was a product of a lot of hard work.”
The defence minister, Richard Marles, said earlier that the US remained committed to the deal.
“As we approach the one-year anniversary of Aukus, Australia, the United States and United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March, which will see Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” he said.
“All three Aukus partners are working at pace to integrate our industrial bases and to realise this historic initiative between our countries.”
Greens senator David Shoebridge, who has been critical of the Aukus deal from the start, said the US budget announcement was the beginning of the end of Aukus.
“When the US passed the law to set up Aukus, they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to not transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’. Budgeting for one submarine all but guarantees this,” he said on X.
4/ The failure is almost too big to wrap your head around.
We are providing billions of dollars to the US, have given up an independent foreign policy and made Australia a parking lot for US weapons. In exchange, we get nothing.
Nothing but a big target and empty pockets.— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) March 12, 2024
The US budget does include increased spending on the submarine industrial base, which was a key component of the Aukus pillar one deal, as it laid the groundwork to increase production in the coming years.
But Turnbull, an architect of the French submarine deal which was unceremoniously dumped by the Morrison government in favour of the Aukus deal, said Australia was now at the mercy of the United States for a key part of its defence strategy.
He said that the US needed to increase submarine production to meet its own needs before it was able to transfer boats to Australia, but were now only producing about half as many that were needed for the US navy and were struggling to maintain the boats they held, due to labour shortages.
“What does that mean for Australia? It means because the Morrison government, adopted by Albanese, has basically abandoned our sovereignty in terms of submarines, we are completely dependent on what happens in the United States as to whether we get them now,” he told ABC radio.
“The reality is the Americans are not going to make their submarine deficit worse than it is already by giving or selling submarines to Australia and the Aukus legislation actually sets that out quite specifically.skip past newsletter promotion
“So you know, this is really a case of us being mugged by reality. I mean, there’s a lot of Aukus cheerleaders, and anyone that has any criticism of Aukus is almost described as being unpatriotic. We’ve got to be realistic here.”
The ALP grassroots activist group, Labor Against War, want the Albanese government to freeze Aukus payments to the US so as not to “underwrite the US navy industrial shipyards”.
The national convenor of Labor Against War, Marcus Strom, said Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,” he said.
“This Labor government managed to junk Scott Morrison’s tax plan. Why would it be so stupid to continue with his war plan?”
While the Pentagon has sought to assure Australia its submarine production will be back on track by 2028, the looming threat of Donald Trump returning to the White House has raised further concerns the deal will be scuttled.
“On Aukus pillar 1 we are effectively in conflict with the needs of the US navy, and you know as well as I do the American government, when it comes to a choice between the needs of the US navy and the Australian navy, are always going to back their own,” Turnbull said.
Marles has previously denied Aukus will erode Australia’s sovereignty. In a speech to parliament last year, Marles said Australia would “always make sovereign, independent decisions on how our capabilities are employed”.
Additional reporting by Daniel Hurst
Nuclear energy debate ‘many years’ away: Qld Deputy Opposition leader
Queensland Deputy Opposition leader Jarrod Bleijie claims the nuclear energy debate is “many years” away as he focuses on lowering power prices in the immediate future.
Mr Bleijie said he is focusing on making sure energy is affordable and reliable as the Opposition pushes to bring its coal power stations back online.
“There is a lot of water to go under that bridge before that is the case and I suspect we will be at an election before our federal counterparts,” Mr Bleijie told Sky News Australia.
“I stood at the booths in Ipswich West and Inala and every second person was talking about the cost of living crisis in Queensland now.
“People are hurting, they need to see their electricity bills reduced now and that has to be our priority.”
How Biden’s budget plunged the Aukus submarines pact into doubt
Alarm in Australia as the US suddenly struggles to fortify its own fleet
Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 18 March 2024
A year on from the trio’s meeting, the Aukus partnership is suddenly
looking decidedly more fragile. Inside defence circles, there are growing
doubts about America’s ability and willingness to deliver following a
shock proposal from the Biden administration that cuts to the heart of the
deal.
Amid a row at home over government budgets, the White House this
month suggested halving the number of Virginia-class submarines it builds
next year – the very same type it has promised to Australia under Aukus.
That means the US faces a shortfall itself, raising the prospect it may
refuse to sell its existing vessels and leave Canberra in the lurch.
Telegraph 18th March 2024
Peter Dutton refuses to say where his nuclear reactors will go
Peter Dutton, Bill Shorten clash on nuclear on Today show
After Australia’s peak science body called out the Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton has failed to answer one question on nuclear.
Ellen Ransley news.com.au 17 Mar 24
Peter Dutton has failed to answer a key question in a fiery clash with Bill Shorten over nuclear energy.
The Opposition Leader has this week been spruiking his plans for moving nuclear, but when asked by the NDIS Minister where the reactors would go, Mr Dutton didn’t answer.
“Are you willing to host one of your nuclear power plants in your electorate or anywhere in Queensland? Where are you going to put your reactors?” Mr Shorten posited to Mr Dutton on Nine’s Today Show on Friday morning.
Bill Shorten and Peter Dutton clashed on nuclear during a TV segment on Friday morning.
Mr Dutton did not answer the question, instead pointing Mr Shorten towards a “huge argument in the United Kingdom at the moment, where adults are able to have a conversation”.
“The Labour Party there is arguing for the Tories to have more baseload nuclear power because they know it’s zero emissions,” Mr Dutton replied.
“This government, your government, has no chance whatsoever of meeting the net zero by 2050 target. That’s the reality of it. What we’ve said is that where you’ve got a retiring asset … you can replace that coal with a zero emissions technology, the latest technology, the same technology you’ve signed up to for then nuclear submarines.”
During the segment, Mr Dutton was questioned on his stance on Australia’s national science agency CSIRO over comments he made earlier this week.
On Tuesday, Mr Dutton said it had been “well documented” that CSIRO “can’t be relied up” during a press conference where he discussed nuclear energy and a report by the agency that found nuclear energy was more expensive.
Mr Dutton said the report was “discredited”.
It prompted the agency to make a rare statement, with a letter from chief executive Doug Hilton published online on Friday morning, saying that for science to be useful, it requires the “trust” of the community.
“Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science,” he said.
“The GenCost report is updated each year … (It) is carefully produced … and updated regularly as new data comes to hand.
“The GenCost report can be trusted by all our elected representatives, irrespective of whether they are advocating for electricity generation by renewables, coal, gas, or nuclear energy.”………… https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-bill-shorten-clash-on-nuclear-on-today-show/news-story/2a872c38238b358c5b3043158498775a
NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR AUSTRALIA – AND NEVER WILL BE
Climate Council, 15 Mar 24
The prospect of nuclear power in Australia has been a topic of public debate since the 1950s. While Australia has never had a nuclear power station, we do have 33% of the world’s uranium deposits and we are the world’s third largest producer of it. Periodically, as with the changing of the seasons, various individuals appear in the media singing the virtues of nuclear energy – claiming it is the only option for clean and reliable electricity in Australia.
In fact, over one third of Australia’s electricity is already powered by renewables, and new initiatives like the Capacity Investment Scheme are set to push us towards 82% renewable energy by the end of this decade. While the move to clean energy is still not happening fast enough, it is underway and starting to speed up. We do not need distractions like nuclear to derail our progress now, so let’s set the record straight.
Why doesn’t nuclear power make sense for Australia?
1. Nuclear power stations can’t be built anywhere in Australia.
They are banned in every state, and in every territory. Such bans were introduced because of community concerns about the health and environmental risks. Many parliamentary inquiries at a federal and state level – see this Victorian Inquiry, this Federal Inquiry, and this South Australian Inquiry for instance – have been held into nuclear energy, and all have concluded that it makes no sense in Australia.
2. Nuclear power stations are expensive and take too long to build.
Australia’s independent science information agency, CSIRO, has found that solar and wind are by far the cheapest ways of producing electricity(even when factoring in storage). In contrast, the cost of building and operating nuclear in Australia remains prohibitively high.
Analysis conducted by the nuclear industry itself shows nuclear power stations take an average of 9.4 years to build – compared to 1–3 years for a major wind or solar project. Australia needs to replace its ageing coal-fired power stations as quickly as possible to rapidly reduce emissions this decade. As shown in the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan, by far the cheapest and quickest way to do this is to ramp up renewable energy paired with storage like pumped hydro, and batteries.
3. Nuclear power poses significant community, environmental, health and economic risks.
Radiation from major nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, have impacted hundreds of thousands of people and contaminated vast areas that take decades to clean up. Even when a nuclear power station operates as intended, it creates a long-term and prohibitively expensive legacy of site remediation, fuel processing and radioactive waste storage.
4. Nuclear power is not renewable, and it is not safe.
Uranium is a finite resource just like coal, oil and gas. It needs to be mined and, just like mining coal, oil and gas, this carries serious safety concerns, including contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation. On the other hand, energy generated from the sun and wind releases no pollutants into the air and is overwhelmingly considered to be safe.
There you have it: nuclear power is expensive, illegal, dangerous and decades away from powering our homes and businesses. It makes no sense. On the other hand, energy from the sun and wind is cheap, abundant, safe and available now. So, let’s get on with building more renewable energy!
What is a nuclear power station?…………………………………………………
Unlike coal and gas, no greenhouse gas pollution is created in the operation of the nuclear reactor. However, all other steps involved in producing nuclear power – from mining, to construction, decommissioning and waste management – result in greenhouse gas pollution.………………………….
Case Study 1: Hinkley Nuclear Power Station, United Kingdom………………………
Case Study 2: NuScale Power, United States of America……………………………..
Meeting the climate challenge means taking bold and decisive action this decade with the technologies that are ready to go in Australia today. The significant limitations nuclear energy faces means that there is no real prospect of it playing a role in reducing Australia’s emissions.
Huge UK £286bn nuclear submarine deal with US at risk for one reason warns ex Navy chief
The construction of modern nuclear submarines requires more expertise than it took to land a man on the Moon, says the former chief of the Royal Navy.
EXPRESS UK, By CIARAN MCGRATH, Senior News Reporter, Sat, Mar 16, 2024
The first will see the US and UK share technology with Australia in order to develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarines, the SNN-AUKUS, while the second pillar will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.
However, speaking earlier this month, Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, voiced his doubts about the long-term viability of AUKUS, citing estimated costs of up to £286 billion between now and the 2050s.
Prof White told ABC RN’s Global Roaming: “I think the chance of the plan unfolding effectively is extremely low.”
Meanwhile, in an analysis published last week, Allan Behm, director of Australia’s International and Security Affairs Program, wrote: “The 2021 AUKUS announcement came with the promise of a sovereign Australian fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
“Nearly 18 months on, however, it remains unclear if these submarines will ever be delivered – or if Australia actually needs them.”………………
He explained: “Pillar Two is very useful, and there’s a discussion about whether Japan be allowed to get involved, should Canada be involved, etc, that’s great.
“But with Pillar One, there are a number of complications. So, yes, there’s a cost which is huge, and the Australians seem to be committed to it.
“But there are now a number of voices in Australia saying, can we really do this, as one would expect
“The other thing is the Americans themselves, who are going to be selling four Virginia class submarines to the Australians as a stop-gap.
“They are short of nuclear attack submarines and so there are people in America who are saying, ‘well, how are we sure we want to do this because we can’t build enough quickly enough to fill up the gap when we get rid of the ones we’re giving to Australia’.”
The Royal Navy currently operates six fleet submarines (SSNs), of the Trafalgar and Astute classes, with two more Astute-class boats currently under construction, and four ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), of the Vanguard class, equipped with nuclear weapons. All are nuclear powered.
However, Lord West emphasised that such vessels did not simply “come off the conveyor belt”.
He explained: “The Astute class submarines are more complex than the technical work to land a man on the moon. That is how incredibly complex the technology is. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1877871/aukus-deal-australia-royal-navy-astute-class
The Government will dictate where the high level nuclear dump will be.
@MrRexPatrick, ·Mar 13
The Govt has refused to provide #FOI access to its high level radioactive waste site selection process. But it turns out we don’t need to know because, as uncovered by @DavidShoebridge examining #AUKUS legislation today, the Govt will just tell us where the site will be
Nuclear power in Australia — a silver bullet or white elephant?
ABC News, By political reporters Tom Crowley and Tom Lowrey 16 Mar 24
“It’s time to talk nuclear,” Ted O’Brien declared in a video message filmed on an isolated beach last February.
Appointed shadow energy spokesperson a few months earlier, Mr O’Brien’s enthusiasm for nuclear power was already well known, but not yet fully formed as Coalition policy. By many in Canberra, it had been regarded with idle curiosity.
But it was the choice of beach that raised eyebrows on this occasion: Mr O’Brien was in Fukushima.
The small Japanese city was the site of an infamous nuclear accident in 2011, when the Daiichi power plant was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.
Mr O’Brien had travelled to visit the plant at his own expense as a myth-busting exercise.
“I’ve heard many stories about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, including some unfounded horror stories and wildly untrue claims. I therefore decided to travel to Fukushima to find out for myself,” he said.
“I discovered a beautiful place and wonderful people, and I returned home with enormous optimism for their future.”
A year on, nuclear energy for Australia has firmed as Coalition policy, and Mr O’Brien’s “enormous optimism” has earned derision from Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
“Tell him he’s dreaming,” Mr Bowen said last Sunday when asked about the Coalition’s plans. His concern was not safety, where there have been significant improvements since Fukushima, but cost and practicality.
“I don’t know what expert he’s talking to … The average build time of a nuclear power plant in the United States has been 19 years. Ted O’Brien thinks he can do it in Australia from 10 [years] with a standing start,” he said……………………………………………………………………………………….
Nice work if nuke can get it
………………………..setting up in the Australian context would be a different proposition, and would present several hurdles.
First, large-scale nuclear power plants are expensive. The cheap power produced by plants in Europe comes only after decades of operation, enough time for the operators to have recouped their significant upfront capital costs.
It would take a long time – the Coalition hopes for a decade, but Labor says it would be at least twice that – to get them up and running, and an even longer time to bring costs down.
Second, the CSIRO and the AEMO doubt that large-scale nuclear plants are the right fit for Australia’s energy needs.
The east coast electricity market is relatively small by global standards, owing to Australia’s small population.
A single large plant of the sort used in Europe, according to CSIRO and AEMO, would account for such a huge chunk of our power needs that it would be inadvisable, since the whole grid would falter if the plant went offline for maintenance, or due to some fault.
Instead, the agencies say we would need more than one plant working together, like the coal plants currently do. But that would be even more expensive.
Some have called instead for “small modular reactors” (SMRs) – mini nuclear plants, assembled in a factory, which can be set up quickly. Unlike large plants, they can also be switched on and off quickly, which means they could “pinch hit” to provide power alongside renewables or other power sources.
If this sounds appealing, cool your jets – the technology to do this on any notable scale doesn’t exist. Attempts to build them elsewhere, such as in the US, have so far run into fatal cost barriers.
None of that has dimmed the enthusiasm of SMR optimists, including Bill Gates, Rolls Royce and for a time the Coalition.
But the latter’s embrace of nuclear has shifted away from its early focus on SMRs and it now appears set to land on advocating larger-scale nuclear plants on decommissioned coal sites.
A radioactive political issue
This points to a political challenge on top of the practical one.
The Liberal Party has tried, and failed, to start a conversation on nuclear power on more than a few occasions.
John Howard took a nuclear policy to the 2007 federal election, hoping public perception of the industry had shifted. It hadn’t.
Nearly two decades on, the Coalition is hoping it is right this time.
Coalition backbenchers have been agitating on the issue for years, urging the former Morrison government to take up the idea.
Those pleas weren’t heeded, beyond a very low-key parliamentary inquiry, as the party feared a scare campaign on nuclear reactors in the suburbs.
But the change in leadership after the 2022 election saw a surprisingly rapid shift — with new Nationals leader David Littleproud openly calling for nuclear power to be on the table just weeks after polling day.
Peter Dutton also flagged early enthusiasm, although at first only in principle. Then, shortly after the Dunkley by-election loss a fortnight ago, he confirmed this would become official Coalition policy.
An announcement is expected before the budget, which Mr Dutton has hinted will include a list of possible sites for nuclear, likely large-scale nuclear.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can scarcely contain his glee at the prospect of a nuclear fight.
“I’ll give you this tip, when they release their policy, you’ll hear a very clear response … [from] the communities where these giant nuclear reactors are going to go,” he said this week.
“[Peter Dutton] is a guy who’s scared of a solar panel but thinks that a nuclear reactor will be well received. I’ll wait and see.”
But Coalition MPs are confident they can sell the idea to voters, insisting the issue plays well with younger voters in particular.
They point to published opinion polls, which suggest more than half of Australians are now either supportive of nuclear or at least open to the idea.
The most prominent such poll was The Australian’s Newspoll, which suggested approval from 65 per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds.
That poll question asked about SMRs and described them as “zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired”.
Nuclear in my backyard
But if this has created some optimism in the Coalition, the announcement of locations looms as an early political hurdle.
Just a handful of regions have coal-fired power stations that could fit the bill. This includes the Hunter, Gippsland and Central Queensland.
MPs in those areas would have the difficult task of selling a nuclear reactor to their electorate. So far, they seem cautiously enthusiastic, though some want assurances the technology is safe. Gippsland MP Darren Chester warned community concerns would need to be “ameliorated”.
There’s also the question of where to put the waste. Mr Dutton has sought to “put things in perspective” by pointing out the waste generated in the US since the 1950s “would fit in the area the size of a football field, to a depth of about nine metres”.
But if selling locals a nuclear plant is challenging, selling them a nuclear dump would be even more so – although as Mr Dutton points out, the same challenge awaits on waste from nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement.
Bonanza or boondoggle?
Even if the Coalition can convince enough voters to back nuclear power and put them in government, that won’t be the last of the political hurdles.
Next comes the question of money.
Labor’s Chris Bowen has suggested “eye-watering” amounts of taxpayer money would be needed to make nuclear viable.
“Every country in the world with nuclear has required massive transfers of taxpayer wealth to the nuclear constructors,” he said.
The Coalition has been coy on whether its policy will include a taxpayer subsidy, but has hinted at details to come in its forthcoming announcement.
And energy experts say that realistically, any private sector contribution would only come if investors had enough confidence the project would make it through to completion. That would require bipartisan support.
Bipartisan support may also be needed to overturn the federal ban on nuclear power. State-level bans in NSW, Victoria and Queensland would need to be overturned too.
Labor’s national platform currently includes an explicit ban on nuclear power, and some key unions are resolutely opposed to the industry.
‘Niche’ at best
All of that points to a difficult road ahead. And it’s one many energy experts say it would lead to a small benefit at best.
Alison Reeve from the Grattan Institute does not see nuclear as part of the mix, but says that if anything SMRs could play a “last resort” role, supplementing renewables during winter troughs.
“That would be the only possible niche I could see for nuclear … but you’re having to build generation that’s only used for a couple of weeks every year,” she said.
“At the moment it looks like the most economic opportunity for that role is gas, with offsets to cover the emissions.”………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-16/nuclear-power-in-australia-silver-bullet-white-elephant/103571824
Reversing Europe’s and Australia’s slide into irrelevance & insecurity – National Press Club of Australia speech- Yanis Varoufakis
First, Australia must restore a reputation tainted by blindly following America into lethal adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and, today, via its active and crucial complicity in Israel’s deliberate war crimes in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Children are not starving in Gaza today. No, they are being deliberately starved. Without hesitation or remorse. The famine in Gaza is no collateral damage. It is an intentional policy of starving to death thousands until the rest agree to leave their ancestral homeland.
Second, Australia has a duty to de-escalate the New Cold War. To understand that this can only be done if Australia ends its servility to a United States’ actively creating the threats that they then make us pay through the nose to protect us from.
Imagine an Australia that helps bring a just Peace in Ukraine, as opposed to a mindless forever war. A non-aligned Australia that is never neutral in the face of injustice but, also, not automatically aligned with every warmongering adventure decided in Washington.
Imagine an Australia which, having re-established its credentials as a country that thinks and acts for itself, engages with China in the spirit of peaceful cooperation – a far better way of addressing Beijing’s increasing authoritarianism toward its own peoples than buying useless, hyper-expensive submarines that only succeed in forcing China’s political class to close ranks around a more authoritarian core.
Imagine a truly patriotic Australian Prime Minister who tells the American President to cease and desist from the slow murder of Julian Assange for the crime of journalism – for exposing American war crimes perpetrated behind the back of US citizens in their name.
To conclude, if Europe and Australia are to escape gross irrelevance, we need separate but well-coordinated European and Australian Green New Deals.
DiEM25, our paneuropean movement, is working toward this goal.
Yanis Varoufakis – 14/03/2024
Europe and Australia are facing a common existential threat: a creeping irrelevance caused, on the one hand, by our failure properly to invest and, on the other hand, by our ill-considered slide from a strategic dependence on the United States to a non-strategic, self-defeating servility to Washington’s policy agenda.”
Yanis Varoufakis’s address at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday 13 March, 2024
…………………………………. The three post-war phases that shaped Australia’s and Europe’s habitat
Our present moment in Europe and in Australia has been shaped by three distinct postwar phases.
The first was the Bretton Woods system. America exited the war as the only surplus, creditor country. Bretton Woods, a remarkable recycling mechanism, was, in effect, a dollar zone built on fixed exchange rates, sustained by capital controls, and erected on the back of America’s trade surplus. With quasi-free trade as part of the deal, Washington dollarised Europe, Japan and Australia to generate aggregate demand for the products of its factories – whose productivity had skyrocketed during the war. Subsequently, the US trade surplus sucked the exported dollars back into America. The result was twenty years of high growth, low unemployment, blissfully boring banking and dwindling inequality. Alas, once the United States lost its trade surplus, Bretton Woods was dead in the water.
The second phase was marked by the violent reversal of this recycling mechanism. The United States became the first hegemon to enhance its hegemony by boosting its trade deficit. Operating like a powerful vacuum cleaner, the burgeoning US trade deficit hoovered up the world’s net exports. And how did America pay for them? With dollars which it also hoovered up from the rest of the world as German, Japanese and later Chinese capitalists sent to Wall Street 70% of dollar profits made from their net exports to the US. There, in Wall Street, these foreign capitalists recycled their dollar profits into Treasuries, real estate, shares and derivatives.
This audacious inverted recycling system, built on US deficits, required ever increasing American deficits to remain stable. In the process, it gave rise to even higher growth than the Bretton Woods era, but also to macroeconomic and financial imbalances as well as mind-numbing levels of inequality. The new era came complete with an ideology (neoliberalism), a policy of letting finance rip (financialisation), and a false sense of dynamic equilibrium – the infamous Great Moderation built on hugely immoderate imbalances.
Almost inevitably, on the back of the perpetual tsunami of capital rushing in from the rest-of-the-world to Wall Street, financiers fashioned gigantic pyramids of complex wagers – Warren Buffet’s infamous Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction. When these crashed, to deliver the Global Financial Crisis, two things saved Wall Street and Western capitalism:
- The G7 central banks, that printed a total of $35 trillion on behalf of the financiers from 2009 to last year – a peculiar socialism for bankers. And,
- China, which directed half its national income to investment, thus replacing much of the lost aggregate demand not only domestically but also in Germany, Australia and, of course, in the United States.
The third period is more recent. The era of technofeudalism, as I call it, which took root in the mid-2000s but grew strongly after the GFC in conjunction with the rapid technological change that caused capital to mutate into, what I call, cloud capital – the automated means of behavioural modification living inside our phones, apps, tablets and laptops. Consider the six things this cloud capital (which one encounters in Amazon or Alibaba) does all at once:
- It grabs our attention.
- It manufactures our desires.
- It sells to us, directly, outside any actual markets, that which will satiate the desires it made us have.
- It drives and monitors waged labour inside the workplaces.
- It elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs.
- It provides the potential of blending seamlessly all that with free, digital payments.
Is it any wonder that the owners of this cloud capital – I call them cloudalists – have a hitherto undreamt of power to extract? They are, already, a new ruling class: today, the capitalisation of just seven US cloudalist firms is approximately the same as the capitalisation of all listed corporations in the UK, France, Japan, Canada and China taken together!
Continue reading‘The most beige person’: The man behind the Coalition’s nuclear plans
The Coalition’s spokesman for climate change and energy, Ted O’Brien.
Mike Seccombe is The Saturday Paper’s national correspondent. March 16, 2024Just two months after the 2019 election, Barnaby Joyce was making trouble for the new Morrison government. The dumped Nationals leader was part of a group of maverick MPs pushing for nuclear power. He reckoned he knew a way to make such a policy saleable.
The Joyce plan, as articulated in The Sydney Morning Herald on July 21, was this: “If you can see the reactor [from your house], your power is for free. If you are within 50 kilometres of a reactor, you get power for half price.”
People living or working up to 75 kilometres away would get a 25 per cent reduction on their electricity bills, he told the paper. By his reckoning, communities across the country would be lining up to get reactors.
Scott Morrison didn’t want a bar of the idea, or of nuclear power. Inquiring media were assured the position taken by the Coalition to the election still held: there were no plans to build nuclear power plants and there would be none unless and until there was evidence they could stack up economically.
Still, the problem persisted. The split on energy policy was boiling over between moderates and right-wingers in the [Coalition] government’s ranks – the latter mostly from Queensland, mostly climate change sceptics and proponents of more coal-fired power as well as nuclear.
A number of the pro-nuclear members, prominently including Keith Pitt and James McGrath, had long been calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the prospect of taking Australia nuclear.
A few weeks later, Morrison gave them one, although technically the August referral to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy was from the then minister for energy and emissions reduction, Angus Taylor.
The chair of the committee was Ted O’Brien, the Liberal member for Fairfax on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, a relative neophyte elected to the parliament only three years prior, on the slogan “Time for Ted”.
To him fell the difficult task of steering through a report that would pacify the pro-nuclear zealots without undermining the Coalition leadership’s “no nukes” policy.
In some respects, O’Brien is typical of Queensland’s conservative party, a unique amalgam of the Liberals and Nationals.
Like many in the Liberal National Party, he is the scion of a family business with agricultural links, Defiance Mills. He began his working life as a trainee baker, before moving into management.
In other ways, though, he differs from the norm. ——— (subscribers only) https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2024/03/16/the-most-beige-person-the-man-behind-the-coalitions-nuclear-plans#mtr
CSIRO chief warns against ‘disparaging science’ after Peter Dutton criticises nuclear energy costings
Douglas Hilton says he will ‘staunchly defend’ scientists as opposition leader repeats incorrect claim that CSIRO report does not accurately represent cost of renewables
Guardian, Paul Karp and Graham Readfearn,15 Mar 24
Australia’s science agency, CSIRO, has rejected Peter Dutton’s claim its estimates of the cost of renewables are unreliable.
CSIRO chief executive, Douglas Hilton, has warned that maintaining trust “requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science”, rejecting Dutton’s comments about its GenCost report.
But the opposition leader has doubled down, repeating his incorrect claim on Friday that the report does not properly cost renewables and transmission required to integrate them into the grid.
On Tuesday, Dutton claimed the annual CSIRO report that had included estimates of costs for small modular reactors – which are not yet available commercially – was “discredited” because it “doesn’t take into account some of the transmission costs, the costs around subsidies for the renewables”.
Despite Dutton’s claim, the most recent GenCost report does include the cost of integrating renewables such as solar and wind into the electricity grid. That is, it includes the cost of building new transmission lines and energy storage such as batteries.
On Friday Hilton said that he would “staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism”.
“The GenCost report is updated each year and provides the very best estimates for the cost of future new-build electricity generation in Australia,” he said in a statement………………………………
Hilton insisted that “CSIRO’s scientists and engineers can be relied on by the community to work creatively, assiduously and with integrity”.
On Friday Dutton doubled down on the comments, despite the rebuke, telling Channel Nine his point was “we need to compare apples with apples”.
“And at the moment that report … doesn’t take into consideration all of the costs around renewables,” he claimed, repeating his original error…………………………………………
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, has repeatedly rebuffed Dutton’s nuclear push, citing cost – including an estimate from the energy department that replacing fossil fuels with nuclear could cost $387bn.
Bowen has accused the Coalition of using “the rightwing playbook of 2023 – populism, polarisation and post-truth politics” in making false claims about the potential for nuclear power in Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/15/csiro-peter-dutton-gencost-report-nuclear-energy-renewables-cost
ABC interview- Sarah Ferguson and Tom O’Brien – a case study in exposing Trumpian-style deceptive spin
Greg Phillips 13 Mar 24
We need a proper transcript of this – Ferguson made a great point (11m25s) that Bill Gates said we should take advantage of our bountiful wind and solar potential. (Plus there are so many things that O’Brien said that I want to add to my “wacky nuclear predictions” file.) – Ferguson: I asked Bill Gates on this program whether Australia should get involved with nuclear energy – this was his answer – “Australia doesn’t need to get engaged on this, Australia should aggressively take advantage of Australia’s natural endowment to do solar and wind, that’s clear cut and beneficial to Australia”
Greg Phillips In the interview, Ted O’Brien employs logical fallacies to support the Coalition’s position on nuclear energy:
O’Brien appeals to the authority of experts and government agencies, such as ANSTO [Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation], to support his argument for nuclear energy.
O’Brien presents a false dichotomy by framing the energy debate as a choice between nuclear energy and renewables, suggesting that nuclear is necessary due to the perceived failure of renewable energy targets.
O’Brien engages in ad hominem attacks by criticising the Labor Party’s energy policies and accusing them of lacking transparency and effectiveness, rather than directly addressing the interviewer’s concerns about nuclear energy.
O’Brien misrepresents the interviewer’s arguments by suggesting that they are arguing against the attractiveness of nuclear energy to investors, rather than questioning its feasibility and cost-effectiveness in the Australian context.
O’Brien selectively then cites examples of successful nuclear energy projects in other countries, such as Canada and the United States, while ignoring instances of cost overruns and delays in countries like the United Kingdom and France.
These logical fallacies detract from the soundness of O’Brien’s arguments and undermine the credibility of the Federal Coalition’s stance on nuclear energy.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 