Modelling shows estimated cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan
Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition
.Australian taxpayers would be slugged with a $387bn bill if Peter Dutton’s current plan to transition to nuclear was actioned.
Ellen Ransley, news.com.au, 18 Sept 23
Replacing Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the Coalition’s suggested nuclear energy model would cost taxpayers up to $387bn, new modelling suggests.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, backed particularly by junior Coalition partners the Nationals, has previously suggested that Australia could “convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.
Mr Dutton has also said nuclear is the “lowest cost form” of low carbon electricity, but has not explicitly outlined how much such a transition would cost.
New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly.
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”.
But the Greens have called on the government to stop the distraction and explain to Australians why they are forging ahead with new coal and gas projects when the country is in the grips of a “climate crisis”.
“Australia is forecast to have its worst summer since the Black Summer, and yet Labor is approving more coal and gas. Peter Dutton’s nuclear push is a distraction from Labor’s continual approval of new coal and gas projects,” party leader Adam Bandt said.
“We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by Peter Dutton’s push for nuclear when Labor keeps opening new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.”
A minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of the country’s retiring coal fleet.
Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition.
The opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” Mr Bowen said.
“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”
In total, the $387bn plan costs about 20 times what the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund is projected to cost.
The government says that fund will help achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, by unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.
When Mr Dutton made his pitch for a nuclear transition in July, he suggested the Liddell Power Station could be a possible site for a small nuclear reactor…………………………………..more https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/modelling-shows-estimated-cost-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-plan/news-story/39f543faf65d77c53f33ec8d10175d02
Bowen demolishes case expensive for nuclear power
AuManufacturing 19 September 2023
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has rubbished opposition calls for Australia to embrace nuclear poower in the form of small modular reactors.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has injected his idea of a nuclear renaissance into the energy debate, suggesting he might change the Coalition’s official opposition to nuclear power, saying Labor was putting ‘party interests ahead of the national interest’.
According to the former head of the Australian Nuclear Scientific and Technology Organisation Dr Ziggy Switkowski who chaired a federal review of nuclear powe that ‘on paper, they (SMRs) look terrific’, but that we won’t know their costs ‘until the SMRs are deployed in quantity’.
Bowen told a Canberra press conference: “Since the last election, the party which spent ten years telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change says they’ve found a solution for climate change and it’s nuclear.
“They didn’t bother for their ten years in office to promote a nuclear agenda, but as they desperately search around for an alibi for their hatred of renewable energy, they settled on this since the last election.”
Dutton made a nuclear plan the centrepiece of his Budget reply, but Bowen said there was actually no policy and nothing costed.
“Peter Dutton said at a speech earlier this year that it’s easy, you just plug and play nuclear in to replace coal. Well if it’s so easy, Mr Dutton, where is your plan?”
Bowen released cost estimates of $387 billion to replace Australia’s 21.3 gigawatts of coal-fired power with nuclear.
This would involve the construction of 71 nuclear reactors spread across Australia.
Given the public pushback on even low level waste disposal sites, any plan to build 71 nuclear power plants would likely be political suicide for any government……………………………………………more https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/bowen-demolishes-case-expensive-for-nuclear-power
Nuclear too costly, too slow, too risky for Australia
The federal government’s preliminary cost estimates for small modular reactors highlight one of the many reasons why this nuclear technology – which isn’t being commercially deployed anywhere in the world – is not a viable option for Australia.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said the nuclear option would dramatically increase household electricity bills, slow the transition to clean energy, introduce the possibility of catastrophic accidents and create multi-generational risks associated with the management of high-level nuclear waste.
“The government’s initial cost estimates show the unacceptably high financial costs of technology that does not even exist on a commercial scale,” Dave Sweeney said.
“Aside from financial costs, Australians don’t need or want to take on the massive risks that accompany nuclear energy – catastrophic meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima, plus the intergenerational danger of storing high-level radioactive waste for centuries.
“We cannot afford to squander more time in moving our economy away from its reliance on climate-damaging coal and gas. Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action.
“Australia is blessed with amazing clean energy resources. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.” For interviews contact: Dave Sweeney 0408 317 812, or Josh Meadows 0439 342 992
Chris Hedges: Craig Murray on the ‘Slow Motion Execution’ of Assange
And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
SCHEERPOST, September 17, 2023
Julian Assange continues to fight extradition to the United States to face prosecution under the Espionage Act, a growing chorus of voices is rising to demand an end to his persecution. Hounded by US law enforcement and its allies for more than a decade, Assange has been stripped of all personal and civil liberties for the crime of exposing the extent of US atrocities during the War on Terror. In the intervening years, it’s become nakedly apparent that the intent of the US government is not only to silence Assange in particular, but to send a message to whistleblowers and journalists everywhere on the consequences of speaking truth to power. Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who was fired for exposing the CIA’s use of torture in the country, joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss what Julian Assange’s fight means for all of us.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, was removed from his post after he made public the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek government and the CIA. He has since become one of Britain’s most important human rights campaigners and a fierce advocate for Julian Assange as well as a supporter of Scottish independence. His coverage of the trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salman, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges, saw him charged with contempt of court and sentenced to eight months in prison. The very dubious sentence, half of which Craig served, upended most legal norms. He was sentenced, supporters argued, to prevent him from testifying as a witness in the Spanish criminal case against UC global director, David Morales, being prosecuted for installing a surveillance system in the Ecuador embassy when Julian Assange found refuge that was used to record the privileged communications between Julian and his lawyers.
Morales is alleged to have carried out this surveillance on behalf of the CIA. Murray has published some of the most prescient and eloquent reports from Julian’s extradition hearings and was one of a half dozen guests, including myself, invited to Julian and Stella’s wedding in Belmarsh Prison in March 2022. Prison authorities denied entry to Craig, based on what the UK Ministry of Justice said were security concerns, as well as myself from attending the ceremony.
Joining me to discuss what is happening to Julian Assange and the rapid erosion of our most basic democratic rights is Craig Murray.
And to begin, Craig, I read all of your reports from the trial which are at once eloquent and brilliant. It’s the best coverage that we’ve had of the hearings. But I want you to bring us up to date with where we are with the case at this moment.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The legal procedures have been extraordinarily convoluted after the first hearings for the magistrate ruled that Julian couldn’t be extradited, on essentially, health grounds. Due to the conditions in American prisons, the US then appealed against that verdict. The high court accepted the US appeal on extraordinarily dubious grounds based on a diplomatic note giving certain assurances which were conditional and based on Julian’s future behavior. And of course, the US government has a record of breaking such assurances, and also, those assurances could have been given at the time of the initial hearing and weren’t.
Chris Hedges: I don’t think those assurances have any… It was a diplomatic note. It has no legal validity.
Craig Murray: It has no legal validity. It’s not binding in any sense. And as I say, it is in itself conditional. It states that they may change this in the future. It actually says that –
Chris Hedges: Well, based on his behavior.
Craig Murray: – Based on his behavior, which they will be the sole judges of.
Chris Hedges: Of course.
Craig Murray: And which won’t involve any further legal process. They will decide he’s going into a supermax because they don’t like the way he looks at guards or something. It’s utterly meaningless. And so the US, having won that appeal so Julian could be extradited, it was then Julian’s turn to appeal on all the points he had lost at the original extradition. Those include the First Amendment, they include freedom of speech, obviously, and they include the fact that the very extradition treaty under which he’s being extradited states that there shall be no political extradition and this is plainly a very political case and several other important grounds. That appeal was lodged. Nothing then happened for a year. And that appeal is an extraordinary document. You can actually find it on my website, CraigMurray.org.uk.
I’ve published the entire appeal document and it is an amazing document. It’s an incredible piece of legal argument. And some of the things it sets out like the fact that the US key witness for the charges was an Icelandic guy who they paid for his evidence. They paid him for his evidence and he is a convicted pedophile and convicted fraudster. And since he has said he lied in his evidence and he just did it for the money. That’s one example of the things you find. The documentation is not dry legal documentation at all. It’s well worth going and looking through Julian’s appeal. That appeal ran to 150 pages plus supporting documents.
For a year, nothing happened. Then two or three months ago it was dismissed in three pages of double-spaced A4, in which the judge, Judge Swift, said that there were no legal arguments, no coherent legal arguments in this 150 pages and it followed no known form of pleading and it was dismissed completely. And the thing is that the appeal was written by some of the greatest lawyers in the world. It’s supervised and written by Gareth Pierce, who I would say is the greatest living human rights lawyer. Those people have seen the film In the Name of the Father, starring Daniel Day-Lewis…………………………………….
She’s won numerous high-profile cases. She has enormous respect all around the world and this judge, who is nobody, is saying that there’s no validity to her pleadings which follow no known form of pleading. This is quite extraordinary.
Chris Hedges: Am I correct in that he was a barrister, essentially, for the defense ministry? He was served the interests of the UK government and that’s essentially got him his position. Is that correct?
Craig Murray: Exactly. He was the lead barrister for the security services. Well, he was a banister who specialized in working for the security services.
……………………………………………………And I saw, 100% for certain, that the judge came into court with her ruling already typed out before she heard the arguments, and she sat there almost pretending to listen to what the defense was saying for now and what the prosecution was saying for now. Then she simply read out the ruling.
Chris Hedges: She’s like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland giving the verdict before she hears the sentence.
……………………………..On the most basic level, the evisceration of attorney-client privilege because UC Global recorded the meetings between Julian and his lawyers, that in a UK court, as in a US court alone, should get the trial invalidated
Craig Murray: In any democracy in the world, if your intelligence services have been recording the client’s attorney consultations, that would get the case thrown out. ………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….at times it seemed as though they were deliberately doing things as slowly as possible.
Chris Hedges: Well, this is what Neils Melzer, the special repertoire on torture for the UN, said that he called it, a slow motion execution, were his words.
………………………………..Craig Murray: It was because of my advocacy for and friendship with Julian. That’s why they put me in jail. I was in the cell, my cell was 12 feet by eight feet which is slightly larger than Julian’s cell, and I was kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, sometimes 23.5 hours a day for four months. And that’s extremely difficult. It’s extremely difficult. But I knew when I was leaving, I had an end date. To be in those conditions as Julian has been for years and years and no idea if it will ever stop, no idea if you’ll ever be let out alive, let alone not having an end date, I can’t imagine how psychologically crushing that would be……………………………………………………………………………….
Craig Murray: The immediate thing that will happen is that Julian’s lawyers will try to go to the European Court in Strasbourg –
Chris Hedges: To the European Court of Human Rights.
Craig Murray: – The European Court of Human Rights to submit an appeal and get the extradition stopped, pending an appeal. The worry is that Julian would instantly be extradited and that the government wouldn’t wait to hear from a European Court.
Chris Hedges: Explain to Americans what it is and what jurisdiction it has in the UK, the European Court.
Craig Murray: Yeah, the European Court of Human Rights is not a European Union body. It’s a body of the Council of Europe. It has jurisdiction over the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees basic human rights and therefore it has legally binding jurisdiction over human rights violations in any member state of the treaty. So it does have a legally binding jurisdiction and is acknowledged as such, normally, by the UK government. They’re very powerful voices within the current conservative government in the UK which wants to exit the convention on human rights. But at present, that’s not the case. The UK is still part of this system. And so the European Court of Human Rights has legally binding authority over the government of the United Kingdom purely on matters that contravene human rights.
Chris Hedges: And if they do extradite him, they’ve essentially nullified that process, the fear is that, of course, the security services would know about the ruling in advance. He’d be on the tarmac and shuttled in, sedated, and put in a diaper and hooded or something and put on a CIA flight to Washington. I want to talk about if that happens. It’s certainly very possible. What we need to do here, and I know part of the reason you’re in the US, is to prepare for that should it take place. You will try and cover the hearings and trial here as you did in the UK but let’s talk about where we go if that event occurs.
Craig Murray: Yeah. The first thing to say is that if that happens, on the day it happens, it will be the biggest news story in the world; It would be a massive news story. So we have to be prepared. We have to know who, from the Assange movement or who from his defense team, who’s going to be the spokesman, who are going to be the spokespeople, who are going to be offered up to all the major news agencies? We have to affect the story on day one. Because if you get behind the story – And we know what their line will be. They’ll put out all these lies about people being killed because of WikiLeaks, about the American insecurity being endangered, we know all the propaganda that they will try to flood the airwaves with – So we need to be ready and ahead of the game to know who our people are, who are going to be offered up to interview, who are going to proactively get onto the media, and not just the alternative media like this media, but onto the so-called mainstream as well, and get out the story…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Chris Hedges. ………………….my reading of it is that they don’t care how they look. And part of it is to send a message. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are, it doesn’t matter where you are. WikiLeaks is not a US-based publication, it doesn’t matter where you are. If you expose the information that Julian and WikiLeaks exposed, we’re going to come for you. Isn’t that the message?
Craig Murray: That’s absolutely right. And this, again, it’s amazing they don’t see the dangers in this claim of universal jurisdiction. …………………….
This claim of universal jurisdiction is extraordinary. And what’s even more extraordinary is they’re claiming universal jurisdiction but Julian is under their jurisdiction because he published American Secrets even though he’s not an American and he wasn’t in America. And at the same time, while they claim jurisdiction over him, they’re claiming he has no First Amendment rights because he’s an Australian.
The combination of we have jurisdiction over you, you have all the liabilities that come with that but you have none of the rights that come with that because you’re not one of our citizens, that’s pernicious. It’s so illogical and so vicious. …………………………………………
Chris Hedges: I want to close because there’s been noise out of Australia. The ambassador, Carolyn Kennedy, said that they might consider a plea deal. I have put no credence in it. It’s all smoke but I wondered what you thought.
Craig Murray: Yeah. It’s an attempt to placate Australian public opinion. Public opinion in Australia is extremely strong. Over 80% of Australians want Julian released and allowed to go home to Australia. Blinken came there and made some very hostile and un-diplomatic remarks at a time when Australia was allowing the US to base nuclear weapons on its side. Caroline Kennedy came out… It’s a lie, frankly. There has been no approach from a justice department or from the State Department to doing any plea deal. It’s purely smoke and mirrors to try to distract the Australian public. Caroline Kennedy was lying to the Australian public. That’s pure and simple.…………..
Build renewables, not nuclear’: energy execs reject reactors.
Australia must focus on developing a huge pipeline of renewable energy as it can’t afford to wait for small modular nuclear reactors to become cost-competitive.
THE AUSTRALIAN Colin Packham Energy reporter
Australia must concentrate on developing a massive pipeline of renewable energy as it can’t afford to wait for small modular nuclear reactors to mature and become cost-competitive, energy executives have urged.
“The economics are clear: we need to act now to build wind, solar and batteries, not wait for a more expensive solution that won’t be available for more than a decade, at the earliest,” said Jason Willoughby, the chief executive of Andrew Forrest-owned renewables developer Squadron Energy.
“Renewables are the cheapest form of new-build electricity, including with the investment required in transmission infrastructure.
“The consequences and costs are too great not to act.
“Australia simply can’t afford to wait.”
Australia is struggling to meet its ambitious plans to replace its ageing coal power stations with renewable energy, and the federal opposition has proposed converting coal-fired power sites into small modular nuclear reactors to ease the transition.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen recently released modelling showing that 71 small modular reactors would cost $387bn.
He said each megawatt of nuclear-generated electricity would have a capital cost of $18.1m – about $5.4bn per reactor – much higher than $1m for large-scale solar and $2m for onshore wind.
Energy experts said estimates for developing nuclear in Australia matched recent modelling internationally, although some expect costs to fall.
Robin Batterham, chair of the Net Zero Australia Steering Committee and emeritus professor at the University of Melbourne, said that if costs fell nuclear power could become a viable and cost-effective alternative………………………………………………………… ‘Build renewables, not nuclear’: energy execs reject reactors
Replacing Australia’s retiring coal power stations with small nuclear reactors could cost $387bn, analysis suggests
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition
Daniel Hurst https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/18/replacing-australias-retiring-coal-power-stations-with-small-nuclear-reactors-could-cost-387bn-analysis-suggests
The federal government says it would cost as much as $387bn to replace Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the form of nuclear power proposed by the Coalition.
The figure, produced by the energy department, is the projected cost of replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has previously suggested that Australia “could convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.
However, he has not been explicit about how much of the coal-fired electricity output would be replaced with nuclear-sourced energy – an uncertainty that makes projecting the cost difficult.
The figure adds fuel to the growing political dispute over the pace and form of Australia’s energy transition.
The government said the new analysis showed a minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of Australia’s retiring coal fleet.
“According to the 2022-23 GenCost report modelling under the current policies scenario, this could cost $387bn,” a government summary said.
“This is due to the estimated capital cost of $18,167/kW for [small modular reactors] in 2030, compared to large scale solar at just $1,058/kW, and onshore wind at $1,989/kW.”
The government said this would represent “a whopping $25,000 cost impost on each Australian taxpayer”.
The minister for climate change and energy, Chris Bowen, said the opposition wanted to promote the benefits of “non-commercial” small modular reactor technology “without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it”.
“Peter Dutton and the opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387bn cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason,” Bowen said.
“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-bullion-dollar nuclear-flavoured energy policy.”
Dutton identified Liddell as a possible site for a small modular reactor when he gave a pro-nuclear speech in July.
At the time, Dutton said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables but as a companion” and he wanted “an Australia where we can decarbonise and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable and lower emission electricity”.
He called on the government to consider removing legislative prohibitions on new nuclear technologies – a step the former Coalition government didn’t attempt during its nine years in power – “so we do not position Australia as a nuclear energy pariah”.
Dutton further accused Bowen of burrowing “so deeply down the renewable rabbit hole that he refuses to consider these new nuclear technologies”.
“The new nuclear technology train is pulling out of the station. It’s a train Australia needs to jump aboard.”
The estimates released by the government on Monday are partly based on the costs for small modular reactors outlined in the CSIRO’s GenCost report.
That report notes that global commercial deployment of small modular reactors is “limited to a small number of projects and the Australian industry does not expect any deployment here before 2030”.
The report notes some uncertainty around the projections.
“Nuclear SMR current costs are not reported since there is no prospect of a plant being deployed in Australia before 2030,” said the CSIRO report, released in July.
“However, some improved data on nuclear SMR may be available in future reports and projected capital costs for SMR have been included from 2030 onward.”
The federal government has set a goal of 82% of electricity coming from renewable energy by 2030, up from about 35% today.
To achieve this, the federal government has committed $20bn in low-cost finance for “rewiring the nation” – updating transmission lines – but is facing pushbacks from rural communities.
Protesters call on Labor to protest Fukushima nuclear waste dumping
Jim McIlroy, Gadi/Sydney, September 18, 2023 https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/protesters-call-labor-protest-fukushima-nuclear-waste-dumping
Protesters took a stand against the dumping of Fukushima’s nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean on September 16. The action was organised by the Sydney Candlelight Action (SCA), based in the Korean community, and was part of a global day of action.
Speakers from the Korean community and other groups condemned the Japanese government and called for international pressure to stop further dangerous radioactive contamination.
Vivian Pak from the Candleight Alliance called on the Prime Minister and environment minister to oppose Japan’s decision.
She also condemned the South Korean government for “not only assisting Japan over the dumping of the nuclear contaminated water but also actively encouraging the ultra right-wing government of Japan to increase its military presence in the region”.
Peter Boyle from Socialist Alliance condemned Labor for endorsing the dumping of the Fukushima nuclear waste as “safe”.
The Australian Embassy in Tokyo even staged a “Fukushima fish and chips” dinner as a public relations stunt in support of the nuclear wastewater release.
Boyle said the Australian government was a “bad Pacific neighbour” because it is undermining a nuclear-free Pacific by supporting the dumping of nuclear waste, dumping nuclear waste on Aboriginal land and entering the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal.
Katti Jisuk Seo, a Korean-German who now lives here, said while enjoying her first scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef the news about the toxic waste came through.
“Japan is sending its radioactive waste on a trip around the world,” she said.
“Japan plans to release 1.3 million tons of radioactive contaminated wastewater into the ocean over the next decades: that’s enough to fill at least 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
“From the Pacific it will reach beaches and seas globally, entering fish, marine plants, other sea creatures and mammals throughout the marine food chain. Via evaporation, through rainfall, it will find its way back onto the lands across our planet.”
David Rho, the rally MC, called on the Japanese government to “accept an independent assessment of the Fukushima wastewater, and to release the true test result”. He said AUKUS represented further nuclear escalation in the region and must be opposed.
Risk assessment and the nuclear cultists
Damian Meagher From Facebook page Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch 17 Sept 23
Risk assessment is a complex subject, but nuclear cultist would have you believe it is a simple straightforward matter. There are at least two aspects of risk that they always ignore.
The first is the issue of risk consent.
Some risks in life are ones that consenting adults decide to take. For example, they might go rock climbing or skydiving, or some other adventure sport. Or they might smoke, drink to excess or have an unhealthy diet.
These are examples of risks that they have decided to take.
There is another type of risk though. Risks that are imposed on a person.
Your neighbour might bring home an ill trained guard dog and allow it to roam the streets without supervision. A food manufacturer may include dangerous ingredients in their product and not disclose this fact. A person might drink and drive and cause an injury to another person.
These are examples of risks that exist, but that are imposed on a person who has NOT consented to that risk.
All risks can be analysed both as to the probability of the risk as well as what consequences the risk poses. The risk of being involved in a minor car accident at some point in your life is rather high, but the likely consequences are minimal.
Proper risk management assesses BOTH the likelihood of a risk AND the potential consequences.Poor nuclear cultists don’t use this method, as it immediately highlights a significant problem that nuclear faces.While the likelihood of an accident is low, the consequences can be catastrophic. The victims of such an accident did not consent to this risk. It is imposed on them.
Chernobyl (an accident that cultists like Goronwy Price prefer to ignore) had impacts both health and economic, right across the northern hemisphere. The victims had the risk imposed upon them. This is fundamentally unjust. N-Cultists are happy to put other people at risk regardless.
Antarctic sea-ice at ‘mind-blowing’ low alarms experts
2
The sea-ice surrounding Antarctica is well below any previous recorded
winter level, satellite data shows, a worrying new benchmark for a region
that once seemed resistant to global warming. “It’s so far outside anything
we’ve seen, it’s almost mind-blowing,” says Walter Meier, who monitors
sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center. An unstable Antarctica
could have far-reaching consequences, polar experts warn. Antarctica’s huge
ice expanse regulates the planet’s temperature, as the white surface
reflects the Sun’s energy back into the atmosphere and also cools the water
beneath and near it. Without its ice cooling the planet, Antarctica could
transform from Earth’s refrigerator to a radiator, experts say.
BBC 17th Sept 2023
Peter Dutton wants Australia to jump on the VERY UNECONOMIC “nuclear train”
| NUMBERS NUKE PETER’S PIPE DREAM – Crikey Worm 18 Sept 23 |
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report.
Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”./************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************/**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.lOpposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report. Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”.
Eating the three-eyed fish: where is Australia on nuclear wastewater in the Pacific?
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
by Emma Shortis https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/eating-the-three-eyed-fish-where-is-australia-on-nuclear-wastewater-in-the-pacific/00
The Australian government’s muted response to Japan’s release of Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific raises serious questions about its commitment to the region and Australia’s history of standing against nuclear testing.
In August, Japan began what will be a decades-long process of releasing more than one million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown into the Pacific Ocean.
Though deemed in compliance with international safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the release of water containing tritium – a form of radioactive hydrogen – has been met with significant opposition.
Most of that opposition has come, unsurprisingly, from China. In June, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the “ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer.”
Opposition from Japan’s other neighbours and allies, meanwhile, has been muted. After expressing significant concerns, the governments of nearby nations like Korea have apparently been assuaged by promises of regulatory compliance – notwithstanding the continued opposition of local environmental and industry groups.
What appears to have happened is that the release of irradiated water into the world’s biggest ocean has been drawn all too quickly into either side of the now well-worn battle lines of “strategic competition” in the Indo-Pacific. Opposition and acquiescence fell easily, and predictably, into the binary framing of US President Biden’s world of democracies versus autocracies. So the focus of dissent has been on China.
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Pacific Islander peoples have been expressing their significant, historically grounded concerns about the Fukushima release since the plan was announced. In June, a member of the Pacific Islands Forum independent panel of experts, appointed to support the Pacific Islands in consultations with Japan over the release, questioned the IAEA sign-off, arguing that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data…extremely concerning.”
The “unanimous conclusion” of the expert panel was that “this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
So where is Australia, an apparently critical player in the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, in all this?
This country, we have long been told, is “committed to our Pacific family, and to working together to realise our shared vision for a stable, secure and prosperous region, and to support the aspirations of Pacific island countries.”
But in a short statement released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade just before the wastewater release began, the Australian government expressed “confidence in the process that has led to the decision by Japan to release the treated water.” In February, Foreign Minister Penny Wong acknowledged the concerns of Pacific Islanders, but was assured that “transparency and trust” were in place. In a move redolent of an iconic Simpsons episode, diplomatic staff at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo even went so far as to enjoy a meal of “Fukushima fish and chips”.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
This muted reaction is doubly disappointing from a country, and a party, that has a long and proud history of both contesting nuclear activity in the Pacific and standing up to Japanese efforts to trample environmental consensus.
For decades, and particularly in the 1990s, Australian labor governments stood alongside Pacific Island nations in furiously contesting French nuclear testing. Stretching into the 2000s, Australian governments remained staunch in their opposition to Japanese “scientific” whaling. In both cases, Australia successfully expressed significant opposition to the damaging actions of an important strategic ally. In both cases, that opposition was mostly contained to the specific issue at hand, and did not impinge on broader security relationships – which, even if they became tense, never broke down completely and have now fully recovered.
In the same Department that joyously expressed its “confidence” in Japan and effectively ignored its “family” in the Pacific, there is – or at least there should be – deep institutional knowledge of how to manage strong disagreements and successfully cordon them off from deeper security ties. Our history should make us confident that we can – and should – share and support the legitimate, evidence-based anger of our Pacific family.
So why isn’t the Australian government condemning, loudly, the release of nuclear wastewater into the world’s largest ocean?
As is becoming increasingly clear, the Labor Party’s decision to support the Morrison government’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines has far-reaching consequences. That decision, made within a matter of hours, has unthinkingly shattered many labor traditions – the most relevant of which here is that long, proud history of labor governments unapologetically standing against rich and powerful nuclear powers treating the Pacific as a dumping ground.
The insistence that Australia “needs” AUKUS has apparently created a reluctance to engage in that discussion in good faith, most likely to avoid the topic of nuclear waste as much as possible – now, because of Labor’s doubling down on AUKUS, a sensitive topic domestically.
AUKUS also points to another factor – this government’s extreme insecurity over issues of foreign and security policy. As was made clear at Labor’s recent national conference, party leadership is determined not to be wedged on issues of national security. Despite all the talk of being able to have “adult conversations”, the government is not willing to allow even the slightest appearance of concession to China, around which every aspect of foreign and security policy now revolves. While on paper, wastewater dumping looks like it should fall into Wong’s category of “cooperate where we can”, in reality, we cannot be opposed to something China opposes, because we are not, and can never be, on the same side about anything – even if that thing is the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
This framing of a world divided into enemies and allies now extends into all of Australia’s relationships. The Australian government’s reaction to the Fukushima release, and its broader relationship with Japan, make that abundantly clear. As a member of the Quad, alongside India and the United States, Japan is regarded as critical to “stability” in the Indo-Pacific and to countering or containing China. That now means, apparently, that Japan can effectively dictate Australian policy – it can be assured of our “confidence” that dumping radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean is fine, actually, and that also, we’d better not even consider phasing out the export of fossil gas to a critical ally, lest we undermine our own security and the stability of our region.
Taken together, all of this – bad faith engagement with the Pacific, AUKUS, and the ongoing insistence that our own use and export of fossil fuels is necessary to regional stability – reveal a deeply uncomfortable truth about this labor government.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, it does not take climate change seriously. Nor does it take nuclear hygiene seriously. And questions have to be asked about its long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Like its predecessors, this government is hiding behind security in order to avoid doing the hard work on climate. That weakness, which extends across all areas of domestic and international policy, is why the Australian government is not “committed” to “our Pacific family”, not really.
In failing to support Pacific Islanders’ aspirations for a nuclear-free Pacific, and in failing to rapidly decarbonise, the Australian government shows “our family” who we are, every day. And they see it.
This, in the words of the Prime Minister, is how Australia deals with “the world as it is.” Our Pacific family could be forgiven for thinking that our vision of a “bright future” for the world is one in which nuclear-powered submarines prowl silently through a rising, irradiated Pacific.
Two years after AUKUS announcement, American politicians are divided on delivery of submarines to Australia
ABC By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan in Washington DC, 16 Sept 23
A Republican senator has renewed calls for the US to step up its production of nuclear-powered submarines before selling them as part of AUKUS, arguing America is as “unprepared” as it was ahead of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The US is set to transfer at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the early 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
However, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, Roger Wicker, told a hearing in Washington this week that the US was failing to meet its own shipbuilding targets.
“We should be producing somewhere between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year to fulfil our own requirements as we implement AUKUS,” he said………….
Senator Wicker insists he supports the AUKUS agreement but has refused to back legislation in congress authorising the transfer of the submarines, arguing substantial new investments are needed in America’s shipbuilding capacity first.
In a letter to the president last month, he and 24 other Republicans argued selling submarines to Australia without a clear plan to replace them would “unacceptably weaken” the US fleet at the same time that China expands its military power.
Push for speed amid prospect of another Trump term
The AUKUS agreement will see Australia obtain up to five Virginia-class submarines from the US before eventually building its own nuclear-powered boats.
But two years after the deal was first announced, the US Congress still needs to sign off on several legislative proposals to progress it.
They include legislation to approve the sale of the subs, to allow Australia to make a promised $3 billion contribution to US shipyards, and to facilitate the sharing of sensitive technology………………………………………………………………………………………………
The political debate in the United States comes amid ongoing questions in Australia about the merits and the cost of AUKUS, which could have a price tag of up to $386 billion…………………………
Tensions within the Labor Party were exposed at its recent national conference, while former prime minister Paul Keating has described the agreement as the “worst deal in all history”.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles also previously expressed confidence in the level of bipartisan support for the agreement in the US………………………………
Big batteries and solar push new boundaries on the grid
The rapid evolution of Australia’s energy system continues apace as the
mild weather of spring and new production benchmarks give voice to the new
capacity that has been added over the past 12 months. As noted earlier this
week, spring is the season for new records because of the good conditions
and moderate demand.
In South Australia on Sunday, solar set a new record
of 120 per cent of local demand in the state (the excess was exported to
Victoria) and on Wednesday and Thursday it was the turn of wind and battery
storage. Wind hit a peak of 141.4 per cent of local demand at 4.35am on
Thursday morning. That wasn’t a record in itself, but the big share of
wind and later solar during the daytime was accompanied by a record amount
of activity from the state’s growing fleet of big batteries.
Renew Economy 14th Sept 2023
The normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools
Solidarity Brakfast (transcript of podcast)
Saturday, 9 September 2023 – 7:30am to 9:00am https://www.3cr.org.au/solidaritybreakfast/episode/palestine-laboratory-ii-militarization-schools-ii-within-these-walls-ii
Annie interviews Sanne de Swart from ACE Nuclear-Free Collective (Friends of the Earth Melbourne) on the normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools.
The issue of normalising nuclear weapons and nuclear power has become a hot topic. STEM competitions financed by weapons companies supported by the Ministry of Defence.
- Friends of the Earth Nuclear Free Collective has an email petition to Environment Ministers to show dissent on this and has other suggestions for actions https://www.melbournefoe.org.au/no_defence_curriculum
Sanne de Swart. Normalisation of nuclear promotion under the guise of STEM education. Nuclear propulsion submarine challenge is directed at primary school students. Very young kids groomed to take part in military preparation. Teachers approached FOE with their concernsVictorian teachers unions are resisting this, and the matter has been taken up by Australian teachers union. AEU federal executive has condemned the programme.Education department guidelines are not to accept sponsorships from tobacco companies. and weapons companies. The STEM hub is working together with Dept of Defence and with BAE weapons manufacturer to promote this nuclear submarine technology.. BAE has been taken to the UN over human rights issues. BAE has pecuniary interest in this promotion.
Vic Education Dept is in breach of their own policy by promoting this actively on their website. Use of financial support from large weapons companies in our schools is against Victorian education Dept policy, probably also the policy in NSW. and SA. STEM education – impression given that STEM has only relevance to fighting machines..
Sanne – But really the STEM hub – we will need the brightest minds for the transition to a greener, more liveable society, need engineering and science and technology. This programme is taking away from that need, and directing education towards militarism and war efforts.It also fails to acknowledge from a nuclear perspective the devastating history around nuclear, that Australia has, starting from the British nuclear bomb tests 70 years ago , through to uranium mining and trying to impose radioactive waste dumps on Aboriginal land, all of which disproportionately affects First Nations people.
The Victorian Education Department is very actively promoting the nuclear submarine project The whole government, with AUKUS deal, is preparing for war, and being quite straightforward about that. Probably the Ed Dept is working with the Defence Dept on the same pathTeachers are concerned that this happening in their classrooms. That it is so explicit. Even BAE Systems is saying they want to create an extraordinary workforce. ADF Careers are talking about the pipeline of recruits that they need. Real concerns from teachers that this will be taught in their classrooms, and that the military agenda will be perpetuated for children – which is irresponsible and unethical, because children under 18 – it is all about positive brand association, they cannot make those decisions, as adults can, they are being groomed from a very young age.
Primary school programmes.
There is a LEGO challenge that is ongoing – also run by weapons companies The weapons companies come in, and promote what they do as something exciting and innovative. There’s a programme called Beacon – it is targeted at years 4 to 6 students. It is funded by BAE Systems – it is less explicit – focussed towards AUKUS, but it’s focussed at lower socioeconomic areas and schools,. That makes it hard for schools to say “No” to them, because those come as well-resourced projects. It is quite insidious in the way that it is targeted at young children, to have that positive brand association with military and weapons companies.I think that this is happening in other countries as well. Teachers in Britainhave been working on this, tooFOE has a few calls for action, for teachers to become aware of this. Also parents are encouraged to take this up , FOE is contacting the government on the issue.There is a lack of alternative programmes for STEM education
63 Members of Parliament call on US to free Assange
Sixty-three MPs and senators have written a strong letter calling on the US to stop persecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and warning of ‘a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia’ if he is extradited from the UK
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’
Sixty-three Australian MPs and senators have signed a letter demanding that “the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end”, Guardian Australia reports, warning it is eroding our respect for the US justice system.
The WikiLeaks founder, who is languishing in the UK’s Belmarsh prison, has suffered for a decade in various states of incarceration — it’s “wrong”, “serves no purpose” and is “unjust” for him to be further persecuted, they wrote. The US wants him on charges under the Espionage Act because of the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But if he is extradited, “there will be a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia”.
The latest supporters included Labor’s Shayne Neumann and Louise Pratt, and the Coalition’s Melissa Price, and Opposition leader Peter Dutton has also called for Assange’s return. A bipartisan Assange delegation leaves for Washington next week. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/63-mps-letter-us-free-assange/
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 