Secret Agreements: The Australian-Israel Defence Memorandum of Understanding
Elbit Systems, Israel’s notorious drone manufacturer and creator of the Hermes 450 aerial device responsible for this month’s killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers including the Australian national, Lalzawmi “Zomi” Frankcom, was rewarded with a A$917 million contract. Business, even over bodies, exerts a corrupting force.
Binoy Kampmark, 14 Apr 24, https://theaimn.com/secret-agreements-the-australian-israel-defence-memorandum-of-understanding/
While the Australian government continues to pirouette with shallow constancy on the issue of Israel’s war in Gaza, making vacuous utterances on Palestinian statehood even as it denies supplying the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) with weapons (spare parts, it would seem, are a different, footnoted matter), efforts made to unearth details of the defence relationship between the countries have so far come to naught.
The brief on Australian-Israel relations published by the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs is deplorably skimpy, noting that both countries have, since 2017, “expanded cooperation on national security, defence and cyber security.” Since 2018, we are told that annual talks have been conducted between defence officials, while Australia appointed, in early 2018, a resident Defence Attaché to the embassy in Tel Aviv. What is conspicuously absent are details of the Memorandum of Understanding on defence cooperation both countries signed in 2017.
A little bit of scrapping around reveals that 2017 was something of a critical year, a true bumper return. The Australia-Israel Defence Industry Cooperation Joint Working Group was created that October. A following Australian Defence media release notes the group’s intention: “to strengthen ties between Australia and Israel, explore defence industry and innovation opportunities, identify export opportunities, and support our industries to cooperate in the development of innovative technologies for shared capability challenges.”
The intentions of the group were well borne out. Defence contracts followed with sweet indulgence: the February 2018 contract between Israel-based Rafael Advanced Defence Systems with Australia’s Bisalloy Steels worth A$900,000; an August 2018 joint venture between the Australian defence engineering company Varley Group and Rafael, behind such “leading weapons systems” as “the Spike LR2 anti-tank guided missile”; and the Electro Optic Systems-Elbit Systems agreement from 2019 responsible for developing “a modular medium-calibre turret that can be configured for a range of platforms, including lightweight reconnaissance and heavy fighting vehicles.”
In February this year, Elbit Systems, Israel’s notorious drone manufacturer and creator of the Hermes 450 aerial device responsible for this month’s killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers including the Australian national, Lalzawmi “Zomi” Frankcom, was rewarded with a A$917 million contract. Business, even over bodies, exerts a corrupting force.
In a heartbeat after the outbreak of the latest Gaza War last October, the Australian Greens filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking a copy of the barely mentioned MOU. After a period of three months, the Australian Defence Department reached the boring conclusion that the application should be rejected. It fell, the argument went, within the category of exemptions so treasured by secretive bureaucrats keen to make sure the “freedom” in FOI is kept spare and bare.
What follows is repulsive to intellect and denigrating to morality. “The document within the scope of this request,” went the letter from the Defence Department, “contains information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to damage the international relations of the Commonwealth.” The MOU “contains information communicated to Australia by a foreign government and its officials under the expectation that it would not be disclosed.” Releasing “such information could harm Australia’s international standing and reputation.”
A telling, and troubling role was played by Israel in the process. With characteristic, jellied spinelessness, Australian defence officials notified Israel of the FOI request in December 2023. In February, the Netanyahu government responded with its views, of which we can only speculate. The Greens were duly informed by the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) that the relevant decision maker in Defence “will consider the foreign government’s consultation response to make an informed and robust decision.” With such words, a negative response was nigh predictable.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge, in responding to the decision, was adamant that, “There is no place for secret arms treaties and secret arms deals between countries.” Furthermore, there was “no place for giving other countries veto power over what the Australian government tells the public about our government defence and arms deals.” The case is even more pressing given allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide taking place in the Gaza strip.
This regrettable episode retains a certain familiar repulsiveness. Unfortunately for devotees of open government, a fraught term if ever there was one, Australia’s FOI regime remains stringently archaic and pathologically secretive.
Decision makers are given directions to frustrate, not aid applications to reveal information, notably on sensitive topics such as security, defence and international relations. Spurious notions about damage to international relations are advanced to ensure secrecy and the muzzling of debate. The OAIC has also shown itself to be lamentably weak, tardy and inefficient in reviewing applications. In March 2023, it was revealed that almost 600 unresolved FOI cases had bottled up over the course of three years.
The latest refusal from the Defence Department to disclose the Israel-Australian MOU to members of Parliament, a decision reached after discussions with a foreign power (that fact is staggering and disheartening in of itself), betrays much doubletalk regarding defence ties between Canberra, the IDF, and the Israeli government. More than that, it confirms that those in Canberra are being steered by other interests, longing for the approval of foreign eyes and foreign interests.
Coalition nuclear plan flips back to SMRs after latest meeting with lobbyists
Giles Parkinson, Apr 12, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-nuclear-plan-flips-back-to-smrs-after-latest-meeting-with-lobbyists/
And then, in a single bound, it was back to small modular reactors. The federal Coalition’s confused nuclear power policy has lurched from SMRs to large scale nuclear and back again to SMRs. It’s as if the policy is decided by the nuclear lobbyist most recently consulted.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s latest thought bubble on nuclear, dutifully reported in The Australian newspaper last weekend, is that Australia should sign up to SMRs, and should be able to build the first of them by the middle of the 2030s – faster than even most of the technology’s boosters admit is possible.
And then, in a single bound, it was back to small modular reactors. The federal Coalition’s confused nuclear power policy has lurched from SMRs to large scale nuclear and back again to SMRs. It’s as if the policy is decided by the nuclear lobbyist most recently consulted.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s latest thought bubble on nuclear, dutifully reported in The Australian newspaper last weekend, is that Australia should sign up to SMRs, and should be able to build the first of them by the middle of the 2030s – faster than even most of the technology’s boosters admit is possible.
Dutton says the new plan will be fully sketched out before the federal Labor government’s budget in early May – and according to The Australian this latest plan follows meetings last week with executives of Rolls Royce SMR and its Australian partner Penske.
Renew Economy decided to check all this out with Rolls Royce SMR itself, and got some surprising answers.
“It wasn’t a representative of ours (who met with Peter Dutton),” a company spokeswoman said by email. “I believe it was a potential partner of ours that met with Peter Dutton who spoke about RR SMR on our behalf.”
Dutton and other Coalition boosters like to talk about SMRs in the present tense, and most mainstream media dutifully follow suit, as if they are already operating.
This is deception. A group of my friends chatting over coffee this week was stunned to hear that SMRs are not actually a thing, despite what they read in the press. A few smaller nuclear reactors exist, such as in China and Russia, but they are in no way modular, which is the supposed key selling point of this new technology.
“One of the biggest problems for SMRs is that they don’t exist,” Allison Macfarlane, director of the school of public policy and global affairs at the University of British Columbia and a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told the Financial Times this week.
“We’re still at the paper stage, the computer model stage. To get to demonstration models and then a full-scale model when you are ready to commercialise will take billions of dollars,” she added.
Rolls Royce SMR is still at least two years away from obtaining a licence, and the spokesperson told Renew Economy this week that the company is hopeful that the first SMR can be completed “in the early 2030s.”
However, Simon Bowen, the chair of Great British Nuclear, the government agency that is trying to lead the technology’s revival and find ways to replace its existing ageing fleet, told the FT this week the first SMR won’t likely be seen until the mid 2030s.
That time line is important, because it goes to the fantasy nature of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. Is Dutton seriously suggesting that Australia, with no civil nuclear power industry, can match the UK on timing on their proprietary nuclear technology.
And first-of-their-kind technologies are always considerably more expensive than those that follow. But more on the timing later, because that goes to the heart of what the Coalition is trying to do – not so much build nuclear, but to stop renewables in their tracks.
But it is impossible to think that Australia would commit to an SMR before it is built in its host country, with all the embedded infrastructure and know-how. And no country is going to commit to more SMRs until the first one is built, and can prove itself. Which straightaway pushes the Coalition timeline back into the 2040s.
On costs, Dutton is trying to convince everyone that nuclear – contrary to all available evidence – is low cost, which The Australian, unsurprisingly, reported as a matter of fact.
The Coalition’s energy spokesman Ted O’Brien engages in some impressive verbal calisthenics by claiming that they might be expensive for investors, but are low cost for consumers.
But if new-build nuclear is to be low cost to consumers it will be the result, as it is in France, of massive government subsidies. And given the Coalition’s horrified reaction to Labor’s “Made in Australia” green manufacturing plan, they are definitely not in favour of government subsidies.
The Australian reported that the Rolls Royce SMR is priced at around $5 billion for a 470 MW facility, which appears an heroic assumption given it is less than one third of the price of the only SMR to actually obtain a licence to date, the NuScale project in the US that was cancelled last year because it was too expensive for consumers.
Rolls Royce SMR’s own web page describes a study produced last year that claimed its technology could reduce wholesale prices in the UK by between three per cent and 13 per cent, depending on how many SMRs were rolled out.
Curiously, the study – according to the detailed Rolls Royce summary of it – arrives at these numbers by comparing SMRs to the cost of peaking gas plants, the most expensive generation on the grid, and which – in reality – is rarely used. They are only switched on around 1 to 2 per cent of the time.
These peaking gas plants are not seen as the usual competitor to nuclear or SMRs, because nuclear is designed to be baseload, not the fast response and flexible capacity needed to fill in the gaps of a grid dominated by wind and solar.
And, it should be noted, nuclear itself is highly dependent on fast-response capacity – peaking gas and pumped hydro – to make up for its own lack of flexibility.
The Rolls Royce spokesperson told Renew Economy that this analysis was conducted in the winter of 2022/23, when the energy crisis was at its worst, gas prices had soared, and energy consumers were being hit by huge bills.
It begs a question, which Rolls Royce didn’t answer: If SMRs are only able to undercut peaking gas power plant prices by a small amount, what does that imply when those costs are spread across the whole day?
The spokesperson confirmed that Rolls Royce SMRs will indeed be focused on “baseload” power, and its SMRs are designed not to displace renewables, but replace “the loss in low-carbon electricity … caused by our ageing existing reactor fleet going offline in the years ahead.”
The spokesperson said SMRs do have a degree of flexibility to load follow and respond “when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine,” and can use its thermal output to produce hydrogen or process heat, which might be attractive in the northern hemisphere.
But they have little ability to ramp up to fill in gaps of wind and solar because, as the spokesperson told Renew Economy in their email: “SMRs work most cost-effectively when ‘always on’.”
And this is important because it goes to the heart of why the Coalition nuclear plan makes absolutely no sense and is more about destruction of one industry, rather than construction of another.
Australia is heading towards 82 per cent renewables by 2030, and even if it doesn’t meet that deadline, it will be above 90 per cent by the mid 2030s, and likely close to 100 per cent.
A fleet of “always on” nuclear power plants will struggle to find a role in that scenario, particularly as daytime demand will be almost entirely met by the anticipated ongoing boom in small-scale solar on the roofs of household and business consumers.
But the Coalition policy, and it makes no secret of this, is not about compatibility. O’Brien’s own energy advisor admits that nuclear and renewables are effectively an “either-or” because the system is either going to be baseload or renewables and storage.
And the Coalition’s fundamental stand is that it refuses to believe that wind and solar can power a modern economy. “The lights will go out,” says Dutton, or “your fridge goes off at home” he added this week.
Which is why they are calling for a moratorium on the roll out of wind, solar, battery storage and transmission, and why they want coal-fired power stations to stay open until nuclear can arrive.
And it’s why their proxies in the mainstream and social media – and so-called think tanks and ginger groups backed by billionaires such as Gina Rinehart and Trevor St Baker – spend so much time demonising the technologies that are currently available, and which can do the job, such as solar, wind, battery storage and electric vehicles.
Dutton’s rhetoric is also liberally splattered with outright falsehoods. A check of his media transcripts this week reveals a number of common false statements.
The first is the claim that Australia is the only OECD country not to have or want nuclear. Not true. Germany closed down the last of its nuclear generators a year ago, and Italy voted against the technology in a referendum a decade ago after shutting down the last of its reactors. A number of other EU countries are following suit.
Dutton also claims that the federal government is planning “28,000 kms of new transmission lines by 2030.” Again, not true. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan models 10,000km by 2030 in its core step change plan. That’s still a lot, but little more than one third of what Dutton claims.
The 28,000km number is a 2050 target, not 2030, and only in the scenario where Australia becomes a renewable energy superpower by exporting green hydrogen and other green products, most likely from vast wind and solar projects in the middle of the country that will need to link into the grids or production facilities.
Dutton says he wants to have a “mature” discussion about the energy mix. But that can’t happen if his rhetoric is based around obvious lies.
Cook by-election candidate Simon Kennedy says locals are ‘comfortable’ living near nuclear reactors
ABC News, By Ethan Rix 13 Apr 24
The by-election for former prime minister Scott Morrison’s southern Sydney seat has not garnered national fanfare the way other by-elections have in the past.
And as voters head to the polls today, you can count the apathy being felt in the electorate of Cook — with early voting down by about 11 per cent compared to the 2022 federal election and nearly 13 per cent lower than the Voice referendum late last year, according to the Australian Electoral Commission.
Even the Liberals’ candidate, Simon Kennedy, won’t be able to personally boost voter turnout as his team confirmed he didn’t move into the electorate in time to meet the registration deadline — denying him an opportunity to pose for the cameras as he votes for himself.
Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm is because the Liberals look set to comfortably hold a seat they have held for half a century, or maybe it’s because the Labor Party has opted not to put a horse in the race, diminishing any usual analysis the result could be a “test” of Anthony Albanese’s leadership.
But for people who are eligible to cast a ballot today, what are they really voting for?
A nuclear reactor in Cook’s backyard
Former McKinsey consultant Simon Kennedy has openly backed his party’s push to introduce nuclear power to the national energy grid, with the opposition preparing to announce up to six possible sites for nuclear plants.
When asked whether he would oppose a nuclear power reactor being built in the electorate of Cook, Mr Kennedy said locals were “comfortable” with the concept because there was already one positioned on its “doorstep” in Lucas Heights.
“People are comfortable with where Lucas Heights is, they’ve been comfortable with that concept,” he said.
“I haven’t heard any fear or worries about that at all.”
Lucas Heights, which is located on the outskirts of the Sutherland Shire, is home to Australia’s only nuclear reactor, which is not used to produce electricity.
It instead produces medical and industrial isotopes and stores low-level waste and a small amount of intermediate-level waste on-site.
“They’re [voters] not looking for people pushing clean or coal or one over the other, they’re looking for cheap, reliable and clean power,” Mr Kennedy said.
Looking at getting more female candidates
The number of female MPs in the Coalition has also been a key question in the lead-up to this by-election.
Mr Kennedy comfortably defeated the only female candidate to put her hand up for Liberal pre-selection, Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner Gwen Cherne, who received 35 votes to his 158.
The result was said to have upset those within the party pushing for more females to be preselected to safe Liberal seats……………….
Who else is running?
…………… The Australian Greens have put up Martin Moore, who has a Fine Arts Degree with a Masters in Social Ecology and ran for the local seat of Miranda at the 2023 NSW election.
Mr Moore disagreed with Mr Kennedy that locals would be comfortable living next to a nuclear reactor.
“I feel that people are really concerned that we’re being dragged into a nuclear wasteland with the AUKUS deal … and the opposition’s ideas of reactors,” he said……………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-13/cook-byelection-simon-kennedy-nuclear-reactors/103696760—
Former PM Paul Keating on a craven acceptance of US strategic hegemony in Asia
By Paul Keating, Apr 11, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/a-craven-acceptance-of-us-strategic-hegemony-in-asia/
The Financial Review, if it wishes to remain relevant, requires a monster dose of reality – a de-lousing of its misplaced strategic ideology and its craven acceptance of US strategic hegemony in Asia, a region where not one US state resides.
In the mid-1980s, a young and enthusiastic Michael Stutchbury was a permanent attendee at my often two-hour press conferences as treasurer, drumming into the Canberra press gallery that the presence of large economic forces was more important and more newsworthy than the gallery’s normal diet of election speculation, leadership changes, tax cuts and cigarette prices.
And Michael lapped it up. He was an early graduate of my school of advanced economic and entrepreneurial thinking. And while he has become more conservative as he has become older, his stewardship of The Australian Financial Review provides an attestation that those economic lessons were an anchor, a ballast, for the wider presentation and contemporary dissertation of economic news and events.
In short, Michael’s close proximity to and at the reformation of the Australian economy in the 1980s and early 1990s has made his views and leadership on economic issues today to be of substantial national value. But economic insight is where Michael’s experience shutters. On foreign policy, as in The AFR View ‘‘JAUKUS shows Australia seeks security in Asia’’ (April 9), Michael is away with the pixies
– a sugar plum fairy in the Australian strategic fantasy.
And that fantasy goes to asserting that an Atlantic power, the United States, along with other Anglos, Britain and Australia, but topped up with some resentment sauce from Japan, in some way fashions a new Asia construct – a construct in which Australia is or can be part. Distorting my policy that Australia could find its security in Asia by being tied up and indentured to a particularly un-Asian bunch.
Unlike Europe, which after the Thirty Years’ War hit upon the Westphalian model of collective security among states of roughly equal size, Asia has always been a hierarchy of countries with China at its top. This remains the case today.
So, the policy of any nation, particularly a Pacific one, thinking it can deal with Asia by ignoring China or pretending it doesn’t exist or that it is in some way illegitimate, is a policy of fantasy. A policy of fools.
But if you are a sugar plum fairy, as in foreign policy Michael seems happy to be, you will believe almost anything. Like AUKUS nuclear subs will belong to Australia and be sovereign to it, despite US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell’s regular and blatant assertions that he expects the subs to be at the beck and call of the United States whenever it wishes to hop into China over Taiwan.
The Financial Review, if it wishes to remain relevant, requires a monster dose of reality – a de-lousing of its misplaced strategic ideology and its craven acceptance of US strategic hegemony in Asia, a region where not one US state resides.
First published in the Australian Financial Review, April 10, 2024.
Flicker of Hope: Biden’s Throwaway Lines on Assange
April 12, 2024 by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/flicker-of-hope-bidens-throwaway-lines-on-assange/
Walking stiffly, largely distracted, and struggling to focus on the bare essentials, US President Joe Biden was keeping company with his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, when asked the question. It concerned what he was doing regarding Australia’s request that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be returned to Australia.
Assange, who has spent five tormenting years in Belmarsh Prison in London, is battling extradition to the US on 18 charges, 17 tenuously and dangerously based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.
The words that followed from the near mummified defender of the Free World were short, yet bright enough for the publisher’s supporters. “We’re considering it.” No details were supplied.
To these barest of crumbs came this reaction from from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on ABC’s News Breakfast: “We have raised on behalf of Mr Assange, Australia’s national interest, that enough is enough, that this needs to be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve raised it at each level of government in every possible way.” When pressed on whether this was merely an afterthought from the president, Albanese responded with the usual acknowledgments: the case was complex, and responsibility lay with the US Department of Justice.
One of Assange’s lawyers, the relentless Jennifer Robinson, told Sky News Australia of her encouragement at Biden’s “response, this is what we have been asking for over five years. Since 2010 we’ve been saying this is a dangerous precedent that’s being set. So, we certainly hope it was a serious remark and the US will act on it.” Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, also told Sky News that the statement was significant while WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson thought the utterance “extraordinary”, cautiously hoping “to see in the coming days” whether “clarification of what this means” would be offered by “those in power” and the press corps.
The campaign to free Assange has burgeoned with admirable ferocity. The transformation of the WikiLeaks founder from eccentric, renegade cyber thief deserving punishment to prosecuted and persecuted scribbler and political prisoner has been astonishing.
The boggling legal process has also been shown up as woefully inadequate and scandalous, a form of long-term torture via judicial torment and deprivation. The current ludicrous pitstop entails waiting for a UK Court of Appeal decision as to whether Assange will be granted leave for a full reconsideration of his case, including the merits of the extradition order itself.
The March 26 Court of Appeal decision refused to entertain the glaringly obvious features of the case: that Assange is being prosecuted for his political views, that due process is bound to be denied in a country whose authorities have contemplated his abduction and murder, and that he risks being sentenced for conduct he is not charged with “based on evidence he will not see and which may have been unlawfully obtained.” The refusal to entertain such material as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on kidnapping and assassination options again cast the entire affair in a poor light.
Even if Assange is granted a full hearing, it is not clear whether the court will go so far as to accept the arguments. The judges have already nobbled the case by offering US prosecutors the chance to offer undertakings, none of which would or could be binding on the DOJ or any US judge hearing the case. Extradition, in other words, is likely to be approved if Assange is “permitted to rely on the First Amendment”, “is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality” and that he “is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed.” These conditions, on the face of it, look absurd in their naïve presumption.
Whether Biden’s latest casual spray lends any credibility to a change of heart remains to be seen. In December 2010, when Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden described Assange as a “high-tech terrorist” for disclosing State Department cables. He failed to identify any parallels with previous cases of disclosures such as the Pentagon papers.
Craig Murray, former British diplomat and Assange confidant, adds a note of cautious sobriety to the recent offering from the president: “I’m not going to get too hopeful immediately on a few words out of the mouth of Biden, because there has been no previous indication, nothing from the Justice Department so far to indicate any easing up.”
For all that, it may well be that the current administration, facing a relentless publicity campaign from human rights organisations, newspapers, legal and medical professionals, not to mention pressure from both his own party in Congress and Republicans, is finally yielding. Caution, however, is the order of the day, and nothing should be read or considered in earnest till signatures are inked and dried. We are quite a way off from that.
The cost of needless secrecy on nuclear. What’s the scam?
The Defence Department and the ADF should keep secrets important to protect our national security. But that doesn’t mean everything they do should be secret. Rex Patrick
by Rex Patrick | Apr 11, 2024 https://michaelwest.com.au/whats-the-scam-with-nuclear-secrecy/
It’s been 395 days since I made the FOI request, 336 days since the Department of Defence said “no,” and 231 days since lawyers started their billing clocks to try to defend Defence’s secrecy addiction in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
The topic of the FOI request is one that goes to elements of the AUKUS program that relate to:
nuclear regulation, stewardship and safety, the management of operations nuclear waste, reactor decommissioning, and the management of nuclear waste.
Refuse everything
Their “refuse everything” approach is even more inexplicable, noting that Defence knows it has to build a social licence to operate nuclear reactors. ANSTO actually instructed them on this during the Morrison study into AUKUS.
Today, the government will hand over some of the secret documents that they now concede aren’t actually secret. That means the poor taxpayer will foot the bill for the AAT’s resources (because I’ll get my $1000 AAT application fee back) in addition to the lawyers’ fees.
The taxpayer’s cost-to-date is not known. Senator Jacqui Lambie has asked Defence for them through Senate processes.
“I’m willing, based on past experience, to wager the legal fees alone will be north of $50K.”
All because of an anti-transparency culture inside the Defence establishment. A culture that is especially acute inside AUKUS, where all information must, in their view, be contained within the valence shell.
Alinta Energy boss likens nuclear pursuit to chasing ‘unicorns in the garden’
ABC News, By energy reporter Daniel Mercer 10 Apr 24
- In short: Alinta Energy boss Jeff Dimery has thrown cold water on plans to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear power.
- Mr Dimery said Alinta considering nuclear power “wouldn’t be a great use of our time” given Australia’s ban on the technology.
- What’s next: The Alinta head said consumers would ultimately pay more for power courtesy of Australia’s energy transition.
The head of one of Australia’s biggest energy companies has thrown doubt on federal opposition plans to replace coal plants with nuclear power, likening them to “looking for unicorns in the garden”.
Jeff Dimery, the boss of Alinta Energy, said while it was theoretically possible Australia could build some nuclear power in the next 10 to 15 years, legislated bans on the technology meant this would be all but impossible.
The comments came during a National Press Club address in which Mr Dimery also said consumers should brace for higher energy costs as the country transitioned away from fossil fuels……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mr Dimery said it was imperative that governments and industry build the back-up or “firming” capacity that would be needed to fill in the blanks when small- and large-scale green sources were not enough.
Nuclear ‘unicorns in the garden’
Among these, he said, were “long-duration storage” facilities such as the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project, gas plants that could ramp up and down quickly, and consumers empowered with solar and batteries.
“Without pumped hydro, or in Victoria’s case, if the generation profile isn’t uplifted by offshore wind to something closer to base-load, then coal and rooftop solar will be locked into a negative feedback loop,” he said.
Asked about the part nuclear power could play in Australia’s energy mix, Mr Dimery was indifferent.
The question of whether Australia should build nuclear power plants looms as a key battle at the next federal election, with the Coalition set to formally announce its policy in favour of the technology.
Quoting his age as 55, Mr Dimery suggested he would be retired well before any nuclear power plant could come online.
He noted nuclear power was banned in Australia and overturning any such ban would be a “lengthy process”.
“And then there’s a lengthy process to go through the development and construction, in which time I’ll be retired,” he said.
“You could imagine our shareholder and our board wouldn’t be too impressed if the management team was sitting around contemplating building power stations that are not legal.
“It wouldn’t be a great use of our time.
“Based on what I’ve read, could you, if you started now, have nuclear in the market by 2035, 2038?
“The answer would be yes.
“But, again, no one is starting now because the legislation isn’t conducive to us even exploring that.
“So … it’s kind of like looking for unicorns in the garden.”
Mr Dimery questioned how relevant the technology was for the pressing task of replacing Australia’s ageing fleet of coal-fired power plants.
Many coal generators, including the Loy Yang B plant owned and operated by Alinta in Victoria, are due to retire in the next 10 to 15 years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-10/alinta-boss-likens-nuclear-pursuit-to-chasing-unicorns/103683252
Nuclear lobby manipulates ABC’s 7.30 Report
By Noel Wauchope | 11 April 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/nuclear-lobby-manipulates-abcs-730,18498—
An ABC report on nuclear energy presented a one-sided viewpoint, dominated by the pro-nuclear lobby, writes Noel Wauchope.
ON 4 APRIL, on ABC’s 7.30, regional affairs reporter Jane Norman presented a sort of debate on nuclear power for Australia. An accompanying article was also published on 2 April as a debate about ‘a generational divide’.
The show was quite gripping, with excellent visual snippets of Australia’s history of nuclear issues and promotional visualisation of the industry’s proposed new small modular reactors (SMRs).
The essence of this debate seemed to be that old people are inclined to oppose nuclear power, but young people see it as a new and valuable way to reduce carbon emissions and counter global heating.
In discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power, Norman, herself relatively young, mentioned some recent opinion polls in which public opinion was split, with younger Australians being more supportive of nuclear.
In opposition to nuclear, elderly Indigenous Aunty Sue Haseldine gave an intensely personal history, passionately setting out her concern for the environment and for the children of the future. We learned, as the programme went on, that older generations had been influenced by the history of past atomic tests in Australia, and by past accidents overseas, and had developed a distrust of nuclear power.
And, presently, the Liberal Coalition Opposition, led by Peter Dutton, is putting nuclear ‘at the centre of its energy policy’.
Moving on to those supporting nuclear power, Jane Norman interviewed the enthusiastic Helen Cook.
Cook is deeply involved in the pro-nuclear lobby as principal of GNE Advisory, whose website states:
‘Helen is recognised as a nuclear law expert by the International Atomic Energy Agency [and] the former Chair of the World Nuclear Association’s Law Working Group…’
She is definitely a nuclear promoter and a favoured speaker for the industry, along with luminaries such as Michael Shellenberger, Zion Lights and Dr Adi Paterson. She said that she had had trouble overseas trying to explain Australia’s ban against nuclear power, but now back in Australia, did not find negative attitudes towards it.
We then heard very limited support from the Grattan Institute‘s Tony Wood. He was clear that at present the economics for nuclear power are “terrible”, but said that SMRs could be an option for the future. (BHP, a big uranium miner, is a big backer of the Grattan Institute.)
The programme reinforced the message for small nuclear power, showing attractive graphics of SMRs prominently marked with text: ‘Reliable, cost-effective, clean and safe.’
Then came Mark Ho, nuclear engineer and president of the Australian Nuclear Association, on the need to overturn the legislation banning nuclear. Construction of SMRs would take from three to five years.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that a country could go from considering nuclear energy to having nuclear energy in its power grid in ten to 15 years
Associate Professor Edward Obbard, the head of nuclear engineering at UNSW, was the final pro-nuclear expert. He explained that there is, among young people, very little opposition to AUKUS nuclear submarines. Younger generations regard climate change as the greatest threat, so nuclear could be one of the solutions. Obbard sees it as a moral case — an environmentally low-impact way to decarbonise.
Helen Cook has interesting insights. She says that Australia has expertise in nuclear power — a questionable claim when it is based on just the staff of one small research reactor. She argues that the USA, Japan and Ukraine have experienced severe nuclear accidents, yet have pledged to treble their nuclear energy production by 2050. One does wonder why.
This is problematic, as all three countries are burdened with nuclear waste and the industry now promises the reactors that might “eat the waste” (itself a dodgy claim). The UK government now admits that the nuclear weapons industry is the real reason for civil nuclear reactors. Her case for nuclear power for Australia seems to boil down to if others are doing this, so should we.
So we have on one side a little old (very articulate and eloquent) Indigenous lady, who probably does not have a university degree, let alone a big job in the industry, versus four “highly qualified” prestigious members of the pro-nuclear lobby.
I wrote to 7.30 suggesting a bit of genuine balance in this debate. I suggested for speakers the very well-informed Jim Green, of the international Nuclear Consulting Group and Friends of the Earth Australia, Dr Helen Caldicott, or Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation. But I now reflect that these might be a bit much for the ABC.
They might consider interviewing former nuclear supporters such as Ziggy Switkowski, Alan Finkel, or some more neutral experts like economist Professor John Quiggin or Jeremy Cooper.
Anyway, it’s the same old problem of false balance that has plagued the ABC in the past.
And there’s another dimension, now. The programme depicted Aunty Sue Haseldine as an admirable person, with genuine concern and emotion. But she hasn’t got the facts, the new young expert technical facts that appeal to today’s young people.
But 7.30 didn’t really present the facts. The gee-whiz SMRs are not new and young. They were tried out in the 1940s to 1960s but turned out to be uneconomic, time-consuming, gave poor performance and produced toxic wastes. The programme glossed over important issues such as waste problems, genuine study of the probable delays before SMRs could be operational, safety issues, risks of terrorism and weapons proliferation.
The ABC has a pretty noble history of tackling tough issues. And so does Sarah Ferguson, presenter of 7.30. I think they let us down this time and hope they will rectify this.
Coalition nuclear plan would force consumers to wait 20 years longer for 30% higher electricity bills
ReNewEconomy, Ben Rose, Apr 11, 2024
The Coalition is making unproven assertions that 100% ‘zero emissions’ electricity can be provided more cheaply and reliably by nuclear than renewable energy. It has even proposed sites for nuclear reactors, including Collie in Western Australia, which currently has three coal fired power stations.
This article compares weighted average levelized cost of energy (WALCOE) for nuclear grid scenarios, with those of renewable energy (RE) grid scenarios for Western Australia’s South West Integrated System (SWIS). The modelled scenarios deliver 95% and 100% near zero emissions energy (Table 1)
Much has been written about the impediments to nuclear in Australia, including laws prohibiting it, storage of nuclear waste, costly insurance/ underwriting of plants, 10-15 year lead time, the unavailability of commercial small modular reactors and likely cost overruns, all of which would add to the cost.
LCOE modelling does not include any of these ‘externalized items’ and therefore considerably underestimates the real cost of nuclear.
In this analysis I have used the renewable energy modelling software SIREN and my LCOE modelling software PowerBalance2, which uses the formula: WALCOE of grid scenario = (sum annualized amortized capital costs plus fixed costs plus variable costs including fuels, of all power stations) / grid annual energy demand.
Capital costs, technology, life time and interest rates are from CSIRO, 2024 Gen Cost draft report, 2024. (Appendices B2, B5, B6).
From Table 1 [on original] it is clear that scenario 1, ‘RE generation with 8 hour batteries plus 24 hr pumped hydro storage (PHS)’ would deliver the lowest cost 95% near zero emissions (NZE) scenario at $119/MWh.
Converting the OCGT generation to green hydrogen (H2) at an assumed cost of 5 times natural gas gives a 100% scenario costing $133/ MWh, which is still 28% cheaper than replacing Collie coal with nuclear and provides the rest of the energy requirements with RE.
All scenarios assume 1.66 times 2017 demand, which should be enough to cover 2030 demand including vehicle electrification………………………………………………
The lowest cost nuclear option is replacing the existing 1550 MW of coal generators at Collie/ Muja with 1800 MW of nuclear, assumed to be small 300 MW units, allowing one to cover down time.
If this were commenced in 2027, the earliest possible for a Coalition government to initiate it, renewable energy installation would slow from that date and the nuclear plant would not be completed until after 2040. Table 1 shows the cost of this scenario is $171/ MWh, 28% higher than ‘RE with batteries and pumped hydro (PHS)’.
Due to its inability to switch on and off and ramp below 50%, nuclear has to continue to generate even when much lower cost RE is available and has to be spilled (See Figure 2). This is the major issue that makes nuclear unsuitable for integration with RE.
‘Nuclear with Existing RE’, (scenario 5 in Table 1) is the other ‘less implausible’ scenario. RE build is curtailed in 2027 and 3900 MW of nuclear would be completed after 2040. This would provide electricity at $203/ MWh, which is 59% higher the RE scenario 1.
Scenarios 6 and 7 – ‘Nuclear and natural gas’ and ‘Nuclear only’ – are included for cost comparison only. They could never be implemented as the electricity cost is exorbitant – 80% and 115% respectively higher than the RE equivalent scenarios.
Also, existing and planned RE – about 1300 MW of wind and 2000 MW of mainly rooftop PV – would have to be decommissioned.
The unthinkable situation of doing nothing until 2040 then waiting until 2055 for a nuclear near zero emissions grid was also modelled (Table 1 column 5).
The CSIRO GenCost forecasts that all capex costs will fall and that nuclear cost will decline most (from $21.2 million to $11.2 m / MWh). LCOEs of scenarios 4 -7 with increasing amounts of nuclear were still 10% – 49% higher than the corresponding RE scenarios.
This analysis has been overly generous to nuclear. The costs of radioactive waste disposal and Government underwriting have not been included.
There are unrealistic assumptions that small nuclear reactors could actually be constructed at the reducing costs predicted by GenCost without over-runs and that there would be no new transmission and connection costs for the high nuclear scenarios.
Nevertheless, even omitting these externalized costs, all nuclear scenarios are still more expensive than those based on wind and solar generation, which do not incur cost over-runs and have proved reliable.
In conclusion the most cost effective near zero electricity (NZE) scenarios for the WA SWIS grid are 95% and 100% RE generation, 95% being achievable by 2035……………. https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-nuclear-plan-would-force-consumers-to-wait-20-years-longer-for-30-higher-electricity-bills/
TODAY. Australia is EVER so grateful to the global nuclear lobby!
First of all, we Australians LOVE spending money! Not on health, education, preserving our unique biodiversity, certainly not on shelter for our growing homeless.
With our relatively small population, we are still delighted to cough up nearly $400billion to buy a second-hand American nuclear submarine and to buy all the USA and UK nuclear submarine wastes that these dear friends vouchsafe to dump on us.
And, it was interesting to read today, that the UK has spurned paying $millions to Rolls Royce as the maker for its proposed fleet of small modular nuclear reactors.
No problem to the nuclear lobby. Rolls Royce now plans to flog them off to Australia instead – Opposition leader Peter Dutton has pledged, if elected, to deliver Rolls Royce small modular reactors into the grid by the mid-2030s.
Any old or useless stuff that the nuclear industry has to get rid of – no probs – Australia will buy it!
Coalition “in a panic” about response to confused and unpopular nuclear power plan
The Australian noted the Australian Workers Union’s support for nuclear power but didn’t mention the opposition of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Education Union, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Australian Services Union, Communication Workers Union, Electrical Trades Union, Independent Education Union (Vic – Tas), Maritime Union of Australia, National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Unions, Unions ACT, Unions WA, Unions SA, Unions NT, United Voice, United Firefighters Union, and the Victorian Trades Hall Council.
Jim Green, Apr 8, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-in-a-panic-about-response-to-confused-and-unpopular-nuclear-power-plan/
The Coalition’s nuclear power policy is being released in instalments in the Australian newspaper ahead of its formal release sometime before the May budget.
Under a plan taken to the Coalition shadow cabinet in March, seven coal regions have been identified as potential locations for nuclear power plants, the Australian reports.
Presumably those regions are Collie in WA, the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, the Hunter Valley and Lithgow in NSW, and three regions in Queensland — the Darling Downs, Gladstone and Central Queensland.
The Australian reports that a shadow cabinet subcommittee will produce ‘economic impact statements’ to promote the potential economic benefits in the seven regions.
The Coalition will try to win local support by using taxpayer funds to reduce power bills for people living near the proposed nuclear plants. Workers will be offered higher-paid jobs, presumably at taxpayers’ expense. And taxpayers will be on the hook for workforce training, regulation, waste disposal and much more.
The plan “will involve the creation of new precincts for advanced manufacturing centred on cheap energy from small nuclear reactors”, the Australian reports. Cheap nuclear power will attract heavy industry, adding to the high-paid jobs bonanza.
A “community engagement process” would be rolled out once the coal sites had been identified, opposition leader Peter Dutton says.
But just like everything else associated with the Coalition’s nuclear policy, the plan to win over communities in coal regions has hit a snag.
The Murdoch press reported on April 7 that focus group research carried out in the Hunter Valley in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria found that voters are “hostile” to plans for reactors in their own areas.
An unnamed Coalition MP said of the Liberal and National Party rooms: “My read is they’re in a panic about it. They don’t know what to do.” A Coalition frontbencher said Dutton is “obsessed with this nuclear thing — obsessed with it.”
Rolls-Royce reactors
“There is every reason to be optimistic about bringing small modular net-zero emission nuclear into the power mix in the 2030s,” Dutton told the Australian.
Indeed he has “pledged” that if the Coalition were returned to government at the next election, the first nuclear reactors would be up and running by the mid-2030s. That’s a big pledge since there is zero chance of reactors operating in Australia by the mid-2030s.
Dutton recently met privately with executives from Rolls-Royce to discuss “the pursuit of low-cost small modular reactor technology for Australia”, the Australian reports.
Rolls-Royce claims it could build a reactor in Australia in just four years (once licensing and a myriad of other issues were sorted). Let’s compare that speculation with real world experience:
Continue readingPeter Dutton to press ahead with nuclear despite opposition in regional Australia
Locals who live in areas earmarked for nuclear reactors have delivered a blow to Peter Dutton’s energy plan.
James Campbell National political editor, April 7, 2024, The Sunday Telegraph
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nsw/peter-dutton-to-press-ahead-with-nuclear-despite-opposition-in-regional-australia/news-story/53a7108e83484542ee99870d5002fba9
Peter Dutton will press on with his plans for nuclear power, despite recent Coalition research finding widespread opposition to the proposals in regional areas earmarked for reactors.
Coalition sources said focus group research carried out in the Hunter Valley in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria in recent weeks found hostility to the proposed polices.
It found that while voters were aware of the general arguments for nuclear power, they were hostile to plans for reactors in their own areas.
A Coalition source familiar with the research said the findings had come as a shock.
“They had convinced themselves that people would be queuing up for these things,” the source said.
Another said it was clear “more work needs to be done” on winning the argument.
But Mr Dutton is still set to release his plan for net-zero energy before the May budget.
The Weekend Australian reported the Coalition’s plan would offer heavily discounted power bills to communities with nuclear power plants.
It also reported the plan is to install small nuclear reactors at as many as seven sites, which will be operating by the mid-2030s.
“The ability to produce zero-emissions baseload with 24/7 electricity to firm up renewables is within our grasp,” he told the paper.
However a Coalition MP who strongly supports nuclear power said there was increasing concern in both the Liberal and National Party rooms that it was already too late to win the public argument about nuclear power in the time left before the next election.
“We haven’t even seen the policy yet,” the MP said. “My read is they’re in panic about it. They don’t know what to do.”
The Sunday Telegraph spoke to a number of Coalition MPs, including frontbenchers, who expressed concerns about the saleability of nuclear power from opposition.
But they all agreed Mr Dutton is not for turning on ¬nuclear power.
According to one frontbencher who supports the plan “the best case scenario” from pushing nuclear power would be a “nil-all draw” with the Government.
“Let’s not kid ourselves that this is some kind of vote-catching policy,” the frontbencher said.
But he said there was no chance Mr Dutton would walk away from it.
“He’s obsessed with this nuclear thing – obsessed with it,” the frontbencher said.
“Peter is very determined to go down this path,” another said.
On Wednesday, Mr Dutton told reporters: “I think we need to have a proper, mature discussion about how we migrate to a new energy system where we can have renewables that are firmed up by zero emissions, latest generation nuclear technology”.
He added: “In terms of regions, we’ve been very definite in our advice that we’re looking at about half a dozen sites, on brownfield sites, those where you’ve got a coal-fired generator coming to an end of life”.
Aukusing for War: The Real Target Is China
Dr Binoy Kampmark, April 7 2024 https://theaimn.com/aukusing-for-war-the-real-target-is-china/
A remarkably perverse reality is in the offing regarding AUKUS. In terms of submarines, it will lag, possibly even sink, leaving the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, operating their fleets as Australians foot the bill and provide the refreshment
Not only is Australia effectively promising to finance and service that particular capacity, it will also do so in the service of a potentially catastrophic conflict which will see its automatic commitment. A truly high price to pay for an abdication of sovereignty for the fiction of regional stability.
The occasional burst of candour from US diplomats provides a striking, air clearing difference to their Australian and British counterparts. Official statements about the AUKUS security pact between Washington, London and Canberra, rarely mention the target in so many words, except on the gossiping fringes. Commentators and think tankers are essentially given free rein to speculate, masticating over such streaky and light terms as “new strategic environment”, “great power competition”, “rules-based order”.
On the occasion of his April 3 visit to Washington’s Center for a New American Security (CNAS), US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell was refreshingly frank. His presence as an emissary of US power in the Pacific has been notable since the AUKUS announcement in September 2021.
In March last year, Campbell, as Deputy Assistant to the US President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific National Security Council, was unfurling the US flag before various Pacific states, adamant that US policy was being reoriented from one of neglect to one of greater attentiveness. The Solomon Islands, given its newly minted security pact with Beijing, was of special concern. “We realise that we have to overcome in certain areas some amounts of distrust and uncertainty about follow through,” he explained to reporters in Wellington, New Zealand. “We’re seeking to gain that trust and confidence as we go forward.”
In Honiara, Campbell conceded that the US had not done “enough before” and had to be “big enough to admit that we need to do more, and we need to do better.” This entailed, in no small part, cornering the Solomon Islands Premier Manasseh Sogavare into affirming that Beijing would not be permitted to establish a military facility capable of supporting “power projection capabilities.”
In his discussion with the CNAS Chief Executive Officer, Richard Fontaine, Campbell did the usual runup, doffing the cap to the stock principles. Banal generalities were discussed, for instance, as to whether the US should be the sole show in projecting power or seek support from like-minded sorts. “I would argue that as the United States and other nations confront a challenging security environment, that the best way to maintain peace and security is to work constructively and deeply with allies and partners.” A less than stealthy rebuke was reserved for those who think “that the best that the United States can do is to act alone and to husband its resources and think about unilateral, individual steps it might take.”
The latter view has always been scorned by those calling themselves multilateralists, a cloaking term for waging war arm-in-arm with satellite states and vassals while ascribing to it peace keeping purposes in the name of stability. Campbell is unsurprising in arguing “that working closely with other nations, not just diplomatically, but in defensive avenues [emphasis added], has the consequence of strengthening peace and stability more generally.” The virtue with the unilateralists is the possibility that war should be resorted to sparingly. If one is taking up arms alone, a sense of caution can moderate the bloodlust.
Campbell revealingly envisages “a number of areas of conflict and in a number of scenarios that countries acting together” in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia, South Korea and India. “I think that balance, the additional capacity will help strengthen deterrence more general [sic].” The candid admission on the role played by the AUKUS submarines follows, with the boats having “the potential to have submarines from a number of countries operating in close coordination that could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances. Those have enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances.” And so, we have the prospect of submarines associated with the AUKUS compact being engaged in a potential war with China over Taiwan.
When asked on what to do about the slow production rate of submarines on the part of the US Navy necessary to keep AUKUS afloat, Campbell acknowledged the constraints – the Covid pandemic, supply chain issues, the number of submarines in dry dock requiring or requiring servicing. But like Don Quixote taking the reins of Rosinante to charge the windmills, he is undeterred in his optimism, insisting that “the urgent security demands in Europe and the Indo-Pacific require much more rapid ability to deliver both ordinance and other capabilities.”
To do so, the military industrial complex needs to be broadened (good news for the defence industry, terrible for the peacemakers). “I think probably there is going to be a need over time for a larger number of vendors, both in the United States in Australia and Great Britain, involved in both AUKUS and other endeavours.”
There was also little by way of peace talk in Campbell’s confidence about the April 11 trilateral Washington summit between the US, Japan and the Philippines, following a bilateral summit to be held between President Joe Biden and Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. When terms such as “modernize” and “update” are bandied about in the context of an alliance, notably with an eye towards a rival power’s ambitions, the warring instincts must surely be stirred. In the language of true encirclement, Campbell envisages a cooperative framework that will “help link the Indo-Pacific more effectively to Europe” while underscoring “our commitment to the region as a whole.”
A remarkably perverse reality is in the offing regarding AUKUS. In terms of submarines, it will lag, possibly even sink, leaving the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, operating their fleets as Australians foot the bill and provide the refreshments. Campbell may well mention Australia and the UK in the context of nuclear-powered submarines, but it remains clear where his focus is: the US program “which I would regard as the jewel in the crown of our defense industrial capacity.” Not only is Australia effectively promising to finance and service that particular capacity, it will also do so in the service of a potentially catastrophic conflict which will see its automatic commitment. A truly high price to pay for an abdication of sovereignty for the fiction of regional stability.
The high-stakes power play that will shape our future
April 5, 2024, The Australian, Simon Benson; Political editor
The climate wars may be over but an equally divisive battle is arising out of the nation’s new political consensus. Both sides of politics are locked into a net-zero emissions target by 2050, Labor by choice, the Coalition by the force of political reality. But Peter Dutton’s introduction of the nuclear option creates a stark contest between the main parties on how to get there.
The competing pathways to net zero offer profoundly different outcomes for the nation’s future. They go beyond climate change and raise the fundamental question: what sort of Australia will emerge once a point of no return in the rollout is reached?
…………………………………. a new ideological contest into the debate, reigniting a clash of ideas not only over the future of energy but for the communities that have generational ties to its production.
There are two essential issues at stake.
While the question of energy security has become the axis around which Albanese’s radical transformation of the economy pivots, the economic future of the nation’s coal communities has become the new political frontline between Labor and the Coalition.
In this sense, Australia is not unique. The US is grappling with its own socio-economic dilemma……….
Last week, as the Prime Minister was preparing to fly to the Hunter Valley coalfields to announce a $1bn solar panel scheme to generate jobs as coal exits the community, Dutton was meeting privately with executives from Rolls-Royce for a deep dive into the feasibility of small modular reactors in an Australian context.
This juxtaposition symbolises the chasm of policy approaches to the challenge of decarbonising the economy. Both sides are embarking on equally ambitious road maps. While Albanese has rubbished the idea of an Australian civil nuclear energy program, Dutton is convinced it can work.
In an interview with Inquirer on Wednesday, he pledged that if the Coalition were returned to government at the next election, the first nuclear reactors would be up and running by the mid-2030s.
It is understood Rolls-Royce is confident its small modular reactor technology could be ready for an Australian market in this time-frame with a price tag of $5bn for a 470-megawatt plant. Each plant would take four years to build and have a life-span of 60 years.
Rolls-Royce signed a contract with the Albanese government in February to build the nuclear reactors for the second tranche of AUKUS submarines.
According to this timeline, nuclear power generation could begin being rolled out at about the same time as the first nuclear-powered submarines are delivered. The feasibility of this timeline will be strongly contested.
Social licence is essential to the Coalition’s ambitions…………………..
Under a plan taken to Dutton’s shadow cabinet two weeks ago, seven coal communities were identified as potential locations for coal-to-nuclear transition on or near the sites of exiting coal-fired power stations, with the promise of cheaper electricity for those communities, higher paying jobs and upgraded infrastructure……………………………………
Not all of Dutton’s colleagues are convinced there is enough time in the political cycle to start building the political case for nuclear power……………………..
Both sides are highly alert to the acute political consequences of an ill-managed transition.
What looms is an election battle over energy security set against vastly contrasting ideologies…………………………………………………
The Albanese government’s Net Zero Economy Authority bill passed by the parliament before Easter set out the agency’s purpose as one clearly designed around the transition to renewables. It was unambiguous in its assessment of the cost and scope of Labor’s plan. The bill was equally clear about what is at stake with the exiting of coal-fired power stations across the country and the consequences if steps aren’t taken to protect these communities.
It defines coal-fired power stations and associated thermal coalmines as being located in six regions around Australia: Collie in Western Australia, the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, the Hunter Valley and Lithgow in NSW and three regions in Queensland – the Darling Downs, Gladstone and Central Queensland.
The political expression of this reality is the number of regional seats that will be affected. Some sooner than others. Neither side can claim a monopoly on ownership of these constituencies.
In NSW, Labor is at risk in the Hunter Valley in the seats of Hunter, Shortland and Paterson, while Calare west of Sydney, held by the Nationals until Andrew Gee resigned to sit on the crossbench, covers the coal community of Lithgow.
In Queensland, the LNP has Flynn stretching west from Gladstone to consider with legacy coal community economics also stretching into Capricornia, which takes in Rockhampton up to southern Mackay. Both seats have been in Labor hands before. Nationals leader David Littleproud’s massive Queensland seat of Maranoa is another that takes in coal communities through Queensland’s southern and central west.
In Victoria, coal communities stretch across the Nationals’ seat of Gippsland, which now takes in the industrial region of the Latrobe Valley………………………………………………………………………………..
Updated Climate Council statement re nuclear power
Nuclear power stations are not appropriate for Australia – and never will be
March 2024By Climate Council
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!
1 This month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Submissions to the federal government’s new draft framework close on the 13th November 2026.
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
