Antinuclear

Submission- Friends of the Earth -re new agreement on  Naval Nuclear Propulsion

underlying premises are false or misleading

most importantly, a wasteful expenditure of public money that will make Australia less safe

It is a logical contortion to suggest that nuclear powered naval submarines are “a peaceful activity”.

Besides spent nuclear fuel from Australian AUKUS submarines, there is a danger that Australia could be pressured into storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from UK and US submarines.

a giant millstone bequeathed to the people of Australia.

Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties re “Agreement … for Cooperation
related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion” Submission no. 5  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

Philip White, For Friends of the Earth Adelaide 4 Sept 24 [Original contains many nots, references, sources)

This Agreement should be rejected for reasons including those outlined below.

1. Because the underlying premises are false or misleading.

(a) Australia’s defence and security
The premises stated in the preamble include:
Recognizing that their common defense and security will be advanced by the exchange
of information, including Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, and the transfer of
Material and Equipment for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, in
accordance with this Agreement; and
Believing that such exchanges and transfers can be undertaken without unreasonable
risk to each Party’s common defense and security.

These premises are false. In fact, Australia’s security will not be advanced and there is an
unreasonable risk to Australia’s defence and security, as can be seen from the quotes below from
eminent military analysts.

Hugh White (emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, former
deputy-secretary of the Department of Defence) states as follows:
The new plan – to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead – is worse [than the old
plan]. It will make the replacement of the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class
boats riskier, costlier and slower. It means an even bigger slump in our submarine
capability over the next few dangerous decades. And it deepens our commitment to the
United States’ military confrontation of China, which has little chance of success and
carries terrifying risks.1

He concludes that it “tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,
overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating, and drags us closer to the front
line of a war we may have no interest in fighting.”2

Major General Michael G Smith (retired) says:

In my view this decision to procure nuclear-powered submarines will prove to be as
useless, but even more costly, than was our flawed Singapore strategy before World War
II.3
Sam Roggeveen (director of the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program) is quoted as
saying:
It (AUKUS) is a project of vaulting ambition that is out of step with Australian tradition
as a middle military power, wildly at odds with our international status and, most
importantly, a wasteful expenditure of public money that will make Australia less safe.4

(b) Nuclear non-proliferation
The preamble also includes the following premises:
Reaffirming their respective obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, done at London, Moscow, and Washington 1 July 1968, and entered
into force 5 March 1970; …
Further recognizing that Australia has announced its intention to negotiate and conclude
an Article 14 arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”)
pursuant to the Australia-IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, related to
cooperation under this Agreement.

The premises thus stated fail to acknowledge that the ‘Article 14’ arrangement in question is a
self-contradictory attempt to close a dangerous loophole in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT only requires the application of safeguards to ‘peaceful’
nuclear activities. That leaves unstated the question of what to do about ‘non-peaceful’ nuclear
activities, other than nuclear weapons which are banned for non-nuclear-weapon states

‘Article 14’ of the Australia- IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/217, 13
December 1974) states:

Australia shall inform the Agency of the activity, making it clear:
That the use of the nuclear material in a non-proscribed military activity will not be in
conflict with an undertaking Australia may have given and in respect of which Agency
safeguards apply, that the nuclear material will be used only in a peaceful nuclear activity.

It is a logical contortion to suggest that nuclear powered naval submarines are “a peaceful
activity”.
In a 6 October 2021 letter to President Biden, seven leading US non-proliferation experts explain
the problem as follows:

The IAEA is charged by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons with
verifying that nuclear material in non-weapon states is not diverted to nuclear weapons.
The IAEA is constrained, however, by Section 14 of its standard safeguard agreement,
“Non-Application of Safeguards to Nuclear Material to be Used in [Non-Explosive]
Non-Peaceful Activities,” which would allow a country to exempt HEU fuel from
normal inspections for decades. This well-known loophole has not yet been tested.5

These nuclear non-proliferation experts go on to articulate the following concern:

We … are concerned that the AUKUS deal to supply Australia with nuclear-powered
attack submarines fueled with weapon-grade uranium could have serious negative
impacts on the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and thereby on US national
security.6

They are concerned that countries including Iran, Brazil and South Korea could use the agreement
between Australia, the UK and the US as a precedent to support their own interest in acquiring
nuclear submarines. The experts express their concern for US national security, but the negative
impacts also apply to the national security of Australia.

2. Radioactive waste
   If Australia goes ahead with its plan to acquire nuclear powered submarines, the resulting spent
   nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste will continue to be dangerous for tens of thousands of
   years. It will have to be managed, stored and disposed of, but the countries from which we would
   purchase these submarines inspire no confidence that this can be safely achieved. In over 60 years
   of operating nuclear submarines, the US and UK have been unable to dispose of their own spent
   nuclear fuel.

Besides spent nuclear fuel from Australian AUKUS submarines, there is a danger that Australia
could be pressured into storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from UK and US submarines.
Under the Agreement, the status of spent fuel from second hand Virginia class submarines to be
purchased from the US is vague, but it is likely that Australia would be expected to accept US
spent fuel: i.e. to dispose of both the spent fuel produced while the submarines were owned and
operated by the US, as well as that produced while they were owned and operated by Australia.
The situation regarding other UK and US submarines is also unclear.

Minister for Defence RichardMarles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and
the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.

It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal
facilities. As former Senator Rex Patrick points out, “Australia has been searching for a site for a
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site since the 1970s; and after 50
years, it still hasn’t found a spot on which to safely establish such a repository.”8 Several attempts
have been made, but they have been opposed by the Traditional Custodians, as well as the wider
public. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous
materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their
free, prior and informed consent.9

This principle has not been followed in the search for a National Radioactive Waste Management
Facility. Now the Commonwealth Government is seeking to commit Australia to storing and
disposing of highly radioactive long-lived spent nuclear fuel from nuclear submarines. In the event
that Australia does acquire nuclear submarines, any future disposal site selection process should
adhere to this principle. However, it should not be taken for granted that Australia will be able to
find willing communities to host a site, especially considering that several State and Territory
governments have laws or policies opposing the disposal of nuclear waste in their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth should respect such prohibitions. It should not take the view that it can jus tride roughshod over them.

3. Health and Safety
   Much as the United States Navy claims that its nuclear-powered submarines are safe,11 the fact is
   that the longer they operate the more highly radioactive material accumulates in their reactors.
   Unlike civilian nuclear power plants, which have some of their spent fuel removed during regular
   outages, US and UK designed submarines, which use highly enriched uranium and do not require
   refuelling, keep accumulating radioactive material for the life of the submarine. Therefore, even
   though submarine reactors have a lower power output than standard civilian reactors, after they
   have been operating for a while they accumulate a substantial inventory of spent fuel.

It is not possible to guarantee that some of that radioactive material will not be released into the
environment, but, under the terms of the Agreement, liability is foisted onto Australia. Article IV.E
states as follows:

Australia shall indemnify, subject to paragraph F of this Article, the United States and
the United Kingdom against any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury (including
third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or resulting from Nuclear Risks connected
with the design, manufacture, assembly, transfer, or utilization of any Material or
Equipment, including Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants and component parts and spare
parts thereof, transferred or to be transferred pursuant to this Article.

So even if the fault lies with the US or the UK, the liability, which could be huge, lies with
Australia. No government should accept such a risk.

Emergency planning is necessary to respond to potential accidents. In the case of port visits by
foreign nuclear vessels, organisations including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the Department of Defence, and State and Territory authorities each
play a role in planning and responding to accidents involving the release of radioactive material. According to the Department of Defence,

1.4 The Australian Government requires contingency arrangements to be in place at all
Australian ports visited by NPWs and also requires that there be the capability to
undertake radiation monitoring of the port environment. These arrangements are
formulated to cover two potential release mechanisms, which are failure or malfunction
of radioactive waste control systems within the vessel and an accident involving the
reactor plant.13

One scenario that is not considered is the case of a nuclear vessel being attacked by a hostile
foreign power. As we witness the attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, we are forced to realise that attacks on nuclear facilities are not confined to the realm of fantasy.
Inevitably a hostile power (be it China, or Russia, or some other country in future) would perceive
Australian nuclear powered submarines operated in alliance with the United States and the United
Kingdom as a threat. We cannot rule out the possibility that such a hostile power might one day
decide to attack an Australian nuclear powered submarine, or a US or UK nuclear vessel while it is
in an Australian port or in waters near the Australian coast.

Even if the probability of a nuclear accident is low, the potential consequences could be
catastrophic. The fact that there are grave risks is essentially acknowledged in the high
“permissible radiation dose[s]” envisaged under the existing emergency response plans.

14,15 There are already risks involved in accepting visits by foreign nuclear ships. However, there have been no nuclear vessel visits to Adelaide, where Friends of the Earth Adelaide is based, so there has
been no need to develop emergency plans for this contingency. We would like to keep it that way.
For that reason, we do not want Osborne to be declared a “designated zone” for nuclear submarine
construction. The claimed benefits (which are mostly illusory) are not worth the risk.

4. Waste of money and human resources
   The projected cost of AUKUS is extraordinary.
   The costs of the submarine component of AUKUS are estimated at $368bn through to
   the 2040s; and the total cost also includes $3bn to be transferred to the USA to help with
   its current domestic submarine production difficulties (Creighton 2023).16

We live in a time of multiple crises: for example, a failing health system, lack of housing, energy
system transformation, and degradation of the environment. All of these crises are security issues.
The security of ordinary Australians is compromised when they can’t get a hospital bed, or find a
home to live in, or pay their electricity bill, or enjoy the fruits of a sustainable environment. All
these security crises could be greatly ameliorated by the wise use of $368 billion. On the other
hand, nuclear-powered submarines won’t even make us safer from attack (refer discussion above),
let alone solve any of the real security issues faced by Australians on a daily basis.
Politicians like to claim that the submarine project will create jobs.

A government press release in March 2023 claimed that the jobs in South Australia
arising from the AUKUS deal would be fairly evenly divided between 4,000 workers employed to design and build the infrastructure at Osborne (Port Adelaide) and a further
4,000 to 5,500 to build the actual submarines. The AMWU sees around 5,000 workers
being needed to build, maintain and repair the submarines when the build is scheduled to
start in the 2040s. Spread over more than a quarter of a century, this is not hugely
impressive.
Furthermore, as John Quiggin (2023) pointed out, at current estimates, this works out at
roughly $18 million per job.17

Spending this money on health, housing, renewable energy and the environment would create
many more jobs at the same time as addressing the real sources of insecurity for Australians now
and in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of the money, but also the
diversion of skills that unwise spending leads to.

For Port Adelaide/Osborne, the lesson is that it would be wise to treat all claims
regarding job growth and related local economic development with a large pinch of salt.
South Australia, like the rest of the country, is facing a massive skills shortage. A 2023
report from Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA 2023) argued that Australia would need more
than two million workers in the building and engineering trades by 2050 and more than
32,000 more electricians by 2030. A development focussed entirely on producing
nuclear submarines to reinforce a growing Cold War is going to suck skilled workers
from other vital sectors.18

5. Conclusion
   The proposal for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines from the US and the UK, was
   conceived in secret and presented as a fait accompli to the Australian public by then Prime
   Minister Morrison. After taking a few hours to collect its thoughts, judging that so close to an
   election it couldn’t afford to be seen to be weak on Defence, as a matter of political expediency the
   then Albanese Opposition accepted the deal, even though it made no sense from a security
   perspective and represented a massive opportunity cost for every Australian for decades. If
   Australia proceeds with the deal, it will be Scott Morrison’s greatest legacy: a giant millstone
   bequeathed to the people of Australia.

Despite the fact that the deal has received criticism from both the right and the left, there is no sign
that either Labor or the Liberal/National Coalition are interested in winding it back. But maybe
these submarines have an escape hatch written into the clauses of the Memorandum of
Understanding and the Agreement itself. Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding states:

The Governments affirm that cooperation under the Agreement is to be carried out in
such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United
Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their
respective naval nuclear propulsion programs.

The grounds for making this judgement are not specified, but based on the current rate of
submarine construction in the US and the UK, it would not be difficult for those countries to make
the case that delivery of submarines to Australia would “degrade their respective naval nuclear
propulsion programs”.19 Article XIII of the Agreement gives them the right to terminate the
Agreement with one year’s written notice, so there is their escape hatch.

We strongly believe that the Agreement should not be entered into in the first place. The proposal
for Australia to acquire nuclear powered submarines should be rejected on security, safety, nuclear
non-proliferation, environmental and economic grounds. Given that both sides of politics have
committed themselves to these submarines, it would take some political courage to reverse course.
If the government does not have enough political courage to make the right decision now, then it
should encourage the US and UK governments to do the arithmetic and quickly come to the
conclusion that they can’t build submarines fast enough to supply Australia without degrading
their own nuclear propulsion programs. The quicker everyone acknowledges this and exercises
their right to terminate the Agreement, the less money will be wasted.

September 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Cash splash for nuclear towns under Coalition plan

Don’t believe the hype!

The Age, By Paul Sakkal and Mike Foley, September 5, 2024 —

Regional communities will be showered with gifts for hosting nuclear reactors under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s energy policy, as the Coalition pledges a government-backed managed investment fund propped up by profits from its proposed power plants.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien detailed the plans in a speech planned for this week’s Gippsland New Energy Conference, announcing the Coalition’s Community Partnership funds that invest dividends earned by the nuclear plants into the local economy.

Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was invited to speak at the conference while O’Brien’s office claimed he was blocked from speaking despite the Coalition proposing a nuclear facility in the region, displaying what O’Brien called Australia’s “immature” energy debate that excludes nuclear energy advocates. Conference organisers were contacted for comment.

The Coalition’s signature energy policy would build seven taxpayer-funded, government-owned nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal generators. The proposed sites are in Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.

In his draft speech given to this masthead, O’Brien claimed the plants would supply the “cheapest electricity in the nation” for firms in industrial zones, which would attract a wave of investment to build facilities, grow the workforce and drive regional population growth.

“We want to ensure that communities like Latrobe can power Australian manufacturing for the remainder of this century and beyond,” O’Brien said in the speech.

“The key here is workers can move over in their same occupations, continuing to apply their skills, doing what they’ve always done. It means their social networks remain, their kids can still go to the same school.”

The Coalition has pledged to build the first two nuclear plants by 2037, with all seven completed by 2050. The sites have been selected to tap into existing transmission line infrastructure once the existing coal plants reach the end of their life.

However, experts have rejected claims that nuclear energy would be cheap, arguing renewables already produce less expensive electricity than fossil fuels and that CSIRO findings show it would cost more than $16 billion to build a single nuclear reactor.

The CSIRO said electricity will come from a grid drawing 90 per cent of its power from renewables, it would cost between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030. A large scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040, according to the CSIRO.

The Coalition disputes the findings, saying the CSIRO did not consider the long life of nuclear plants, but has not released its own costings. This document will be key to understanding how the Coalition intends to return a profit on taxpayers’ investment in nuclear plants.

Bowen told the Gippsland conference on Wednesday the Coalition’s nuclear plan would cripple investment in renewable energy currently flowing to regional communities.

“They want to stop investment, stop jobs, and stop benefits in favour of waiting for a nuclear fantasy that may never come true,” he said.

The Coalition’s claims of a regional industrial boom under the nuclear plan resembles the goals of its previous regional investment policies…………………….more https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cash-splash-for-nuclear-towns-under-coalition-plan-20240902-p5k72h.html

September 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Barnaby’s Bush Summit bombshell: Why ScoMo wouldn’t back nuclear

Barnaby Joyce revealed Scott Morrison rejected a push from within the Coalition to introduce nuclear power in Australia because polling showed it was unpopular.

Daily Telegraph, John Rolfe and James O’Doherty, 30 Aug 24

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected a push from within his Coalition government to introduce nuclear power in Australia because polling showed it was unpopular, the Bush Summit has heard.

Speaking in a panel on energy policy at the Summit in Orange, Barnaby Joyce revealed that when he was Deputy Prime Minister he went to Mr Morrison, the then PM, and made the case for overturning the prohibition on nuclear and building reactors.

He claimed Mr Morrison said there wasn’t enough community backing.

“He (Mr Morrison) said that the polling didn’t support that,” Mr Joyce recalled. “And so it didn’t go ahead.”

He added: “We’ve continued fighting, and … now the Opposition is taking it on. That’s what happens in politics. You just fight, fight, fight, and then you finally get there, and we’re there.”

Later, in an interview for DTTV, Mr Joyce went further: “I’ve always been a supporter of nuclear power. So Scott Morrison didn’t pursue nuclear power because he thought it was politically untenable.

“In politics, it’s not a case of following. It’s a case of leading. And that’s what we intend to do.”

Mr Morrison told The Telegraph it was “seriously considered and discussed.

“It was determined and agreed that there was insufficient runway before the election to prosecute the case for a civil nuclear energy capability … especially given there would not be bipartisan support for the change, which had been our standing policy position on nuclear power for many years, that is, to proceed it would need to be bipartisan.

“That said, nuclear power was included in our government’s Technology Road Map.”

Mr Joyce also told the Summit that the push for renewable energy is the “most divisive thing” he has seen in his time in politics in a fiery debate with Matt Kean.

‘WHAT IS THIS, THE WIZARD OF OZ?’

“It has split communities down the middle. It has made good friends (go) for each other’s throats,” Mr Joyce said during his face-off with the former NSW treasurer and energy Minister Mr Kean – now Climate Change Authority chairman.

“We are going to be mugged by reality on this one … if we keep going down this path, the lights are going to go out,” Mr Joyce said, adding red tape would slow down building new energy such as nuclear power.

“You were the deputy Prime Minister of the country Barnaby … you could do something about it,” Mr Kean said.

Mr Kean added he wasn’t “opposed” to nuclear.

“I’m supportive of the facts, I’m not opposed to nuclear per se, but … nuclear is three to five times more expensive than firmed renewables,” Mr Kean said, prompting a barrage of rejections from the New England MP.

“What is this? The Wizard of Oz,” Mr Joyce said.

Mr Kean said the government Mr Joyce was part of didn’t build any baseload power.

Earlier, Mr Joyce met with pro-nuclear protesters outside the summit and promised he would “fight this till the end.”

The anti-wind farm campaigners were brandishing signs saying “we do not consent” and “minimum 6km setback from our homes”.

“They’re ruining the environment and wrecking regional Australia,” one protester said of wind farms………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bush-summit/barnabys-bush-summit-bombshell-why-scomo-wouldnt-back-nuclear/news-story/f16eae0098c75cb049d0d1a03eddf4be

August 31, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Opposing a USA-led international nuclear agreement that is bizarrely unfair to Australia

Australians can object to the agreement, by putting in a submission to a Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee.

Submissions are due by September 1st. So far, only 2 submissions have been published. They’re sort of “zipped” – so I can’t read them. You can bet your boots they are from the nuclear lobby

I’s a bit of an IT hurdle to actually get your submission in. That’s after you’ve even written it. Which is tough, too, as the general public in Australia knows nothing about it.

But anyway, here’s one little effort

TITLE: Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties concerning the:
Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government
of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion.

This submission urges that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends against
the Australian Government signing this Agreement as I believe that it is not in the best interests of the Australian people on a number of grounds, as outlined in this submission

Australia would be landed with high level nuclear waste – This Agreement
requires Australia to “be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and
disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the
operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article,
including radioactive waste generated through submarine operations, maintenance,
decommissioning, and disposal.” (ARTICLE IV Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants,
Related Equipment and Material, Section D).

The health risk to Australians brought in by the construction of nuclear facilities
and the management and storage of radioactive wastes. Buying second-hand
nuclear submarines make this waste danger another hazard, as we’d be buying
already existing toxic wastes.

Under this agreement it is possible for a nuclear weapon to be present on
Australian shores– this would it would be a clear breach of the highest order of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) because as a signatory to
NPT Australia is not allowed to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
The agreement does not guarantee that the USA will continue with the nuclear
submarine arrangements, but still ensures that Australia will cop the costs. This is
blatantly unfair.

It is extraordinarily unfair and bizarre that under Article IV E. “Australia shall
indemnify, the United States and the United Kingdom against any liability, loss,
costs, damage or injury (including third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or
resulting from Nuclear Risks connected with the design, manufacture, assembly,
transfer, or utilization of any Material or Equipment, including Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Plants and component parts and spare parts thereof transferred or to be
transferred pursuant to this Article.”

The ‘National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14 with attachment on consultation’,
acknowledges that “There has been no public consultation”, with paragraph 55
stating that “No public consultation has been undertaken, given the classified scope of consultations between the Parties on the Agreement, including matters relating to
national security and operational capability.”

The Treaty clearly outlines that Special Nuclear Material to be transferred under the
agreement, “shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to
irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium”, (ARTICLE VI Conditions and Guarantees,
SECTION I –SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL)

In conclusion – the whole agreement is unfair, poorly organised, and should not be
accepted by Australia, particularly in this situation where there has been no public
consultation – set up completely in the dark as far as the Australian people are
concerned.

Noel Wauchope

August 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition Proposal Undercuts Australians to Fund Expensive Nuclear Fantasy

August 28, 2024,   https://theaimn.com/coalition-proposal-undercuts-australians-to-fund-expensive-nuclear-fantasy/

In response to the federal Coalition’s proposal for $100 billion in cuts to housing, transport, education, and climate solutions, the 30 undersigned organisations released the following statement:

Peter Dutton and the Coalition made their priorities clear today with a proposal to gut social services and roll back Australian renewables – all to fund their expensive nuclear fantasy

The radical proposal would slash everything from housing and public transport to renewable energy and manufacturing jobs in an attempt to find the $100 billion they’d need to bankroll their unpopular nuclear scheme – a scheme that would drive up energy bills in the short, medium, and long-term.

By attacking both bedrock social programs and the renewable energy already providing 40% of Australia’s electricity, the Coalition would undercut Australia’s economic prosperity, undermine investor certainty, and make life harder for Australians already doing it tough.

By scrapping Future Made in Australia, Powering the Regions Fund and Rewiring the Nation, Peter Dutton would also abandon the key initiatives designed to reduce carbon pollution and reform the economy to ensure we remain prosperous and internationally competitive in a decarbonising world.

Peter Dutton’s attacks on a Future Made in Australia are especially telling, a rehash of the tired arguments Donald Trump and the Republicans used in their attempt to kill the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.

Contrary to their ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric, however, U.S. inflation has decreased substantially since the U.S. passed its signature clean industry policy. Meanwhile, the policy has crowded in private investment equivalent to six times the support it provides, driven the creation of 210 new clean projects, created 400,000 new jobs and added $155B to the U.S. GDP annually.

The Coalition wants Australians to forego that same opportunity and sacrifice their own social services so they can prop up a nuclear industry expected to raise household energy bills an average of $1000 annually. If elected, Peter Dutton risks taking Australia back to the decade of chaos that characterised the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison years on climate and energy policy.

-Advertisement-

This proposal is a transparent stunt, not a serious plan. Where the Coalition should be proposing real solutions on cost of living, the economy, and climate, they continue to offer only denial, delay, and disinformation. The Australian people deserve far more.

August 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The anti-renewables groups pushing the nuclear option to rural Australia.

SMH, By Bianca Hall, August 26, 2024 

Conservative economists, lobbyists, commentators and energy boffins have descended on regional communities nominated by the Coalition for nuclear sites, in a raft of events aimed at changing hearts and minds in the bush.

Organisers hope the events will create grassroots support for nuclear energy and stoke scepticism about renewables, particularly wind farms. The events, which organisers say aren’t linked, have featured climate science denier Ian Plimer, who recently wrote a treatise mocking the “blackbirding” slave trade, anti-wind farm activist Grant Piper, and others.

A matter of detail

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced a future Coalition government would build seven government-owned nuclear facilities on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations, using existing transmission poles and wires.

To get there, it would need to overturn the federal ban on nuclear energy, and overcome state bans in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. It would also need to overcome community opposition to nuclear energy.

Dutton is yet to offer detailed costings for his nuclear policy, but CSIRO’s latest energy cost report card, compiled with Australia’s energy market regulator AEMO, estimates a large-scale nuclear reactor could cost $16 billion and take nearly two decades to build.

While the Coalition’s policy details remain scant, Nuclear for Australia, a lobby group founded two years ago by 16-year-old Will Shackel and backed by entrepreneur Dick Smith, has been growing as a political force to sell nuclear to Australia.

The group has more than 10,000 followers on Facebook; it has paid ads on Meta’s social media platforms that can reach up to 500,000 people; and it held a standing-room only pro-nuclear event recently in Lithgow.

Shackel said he wasn’t a political party member, and his organisation received no funding from any party.

But there are clear links between anti-wind farm activists, the pro-nuclear movement and conservative think tanks like the Centre for Independent Studies.

The pro-market CIS in January launched its new Energy Program, focusing on nuclear energy. Its energy research director Aidan Morrison was a keynote speaker at Nuclear for Australia’s Lithgow event.

Morrison, a data analyst, in June told CIS senior fellow Robert Forsyth he was no expert, and that he was still learning about climate science.

“I haven’t, like many people, dived deep into the science on climate change and tried to map out my assessment of all the different mechanisms and how it’s worked, so I rely – like most people – on trusting those in public spaces.”

Nuclear for Australia was established as a charity in October, but it isn’t required to report its financial statements and reports until December.

Three people are listed as directors of Nuclear for Australia: former ANSTO chief executive Adrian (Adi) Paterson, also the chairman, Will’s mother Kylie, and Matthew Faint.

Paterson, who told The Guardian he was not a climate change denier, in May nonetheless described concerns about human-induced climate change as “an irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food”.

Tony Irwin, a member of Nuclear for Australia’s “expert working group”, told this masthead the group was trying to convert hearts and minds in communities earmarked for nuclear sites by the Coalition.

“You’ve got to have a bottom up approach to lifting the ban, and also be able to influence the politicians and the people at the top,” he said.

Irwin said his group had been contacted by communities in NSW and Queensland opposed to the rollout of renewables.

“I’ve just been in Queensland and the Great Dividing Range, who’ve been absolutely devastated with wind turbines and just bulldozing through all the forests up there,” he said. “We seem to be destroying the environment to save the environment.”

Concerns about land use have been promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs, which in December said “one third of Australia’s prime agricultural farmland” could be covered in solar panels and wind turbines by 2050.

(It’s an assessment rejected by Australian National University professor of engineering Andrew Blakers, who estimates we could fulfil Australia’s solar and wind energy needs in just 1200 square kilometres, a tiny fraction of the 4.2 million square kilometres devoted to agriculture.)

Professed concerns about wind turbines, and their effects on landscapes, are common among pro-nuclear campaigners.

Also speaking was Dr Alan Moran, an economist and former director at the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, who on his website derides “green radicals”.

……………………. Nuclear for Australia has secured frequent and positive coverage in News Corp outlets, including front page coverage in the Daily Telegraph and on Sky News, Chris Smith’s show TNT Radio, and with 2GB’s Ben Fordham.

Exclusive polling conducted by Resolve Political Monitor for this masthead in June showed voters are open to the prospect of nuclear: 41 per cent support it, and 35 per cent are opposed.

But renewable projects have far stronger support: 73 per cent are in favour, amid warnings that investment in wind and solar may weaken after Dutton promised to set up seven nuclear plants if he wins the next election………………………………………

What we hear matters

It’s a truth of politics that a simple message repeated often enough becomes accepted wisdom. But this month a group of Australian National University academics released research that shows this is also true of climate change and renewables.

The team, led by PhD candidate Mary Jiang, showed even the most committed climate science believers could be swayed by hearing repeated scepticism; while sceptics could be affected by repeated statements of science.

“It shows that the power of repetition is quite strong,” Jiang said. “It can influence truth assessment.”

Nuclear for Australia’s Shackel said his group was now planning events across the country.

“If a community want to know about nuclear, we will provide our experts and support our experts to get out there,” he said.

For those living in regions under a nuclear shadow the questions are more complex, says Kate Hook, who is considering a run against Nationals MP-turned-independent Andrew Gee in Calare next election.

“[What] I’m hearing from people is the nuclear proposal, as a best-case scenario, could be up and running in 15 years [and] that’s not a ‘now’ thing. Whereas you can see renewable energy projects coming up in the region, and that is a ‘now’ thing,” she said.  https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-anti-renewables-groups-pushing-the-nuclear-option-to-rural-australia-20240812-p5k1mp.html

August 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

“Gas Trojan horse:” Coalition nuclear push slammed as fossil wedge aimed at renewables

RENEW ECONOMY, Sophie Vorrath, Aug 19, 2024

The chair of Australia’s largest group of clean energy investors has described the federal Coalition’s push for nuclear power as a “gas Trojan horse,” and a political wedge intended to douse investment in renewables and prolong the use of fossil fuels.

John Martin, CEO of renewables developer Windlab and chair of the Clean Energy Investor Group, on Monday named wedge politics as one of biggest issues holding back the shift to renewables in Australia, describing the current industry status quo as “really, really challenging.”

“Australia is the land of wedges,” Martin told the 2024 Clean Energy Investor Conference in Melbourne.

“When I think of the whole nuclear debate, I don’t see that as really about nuclear. It’s a gas Trojan horse,” Martin told the conference.

“If you do any modeling, what will happen? The coal will go, nuclear will take forever, none of us are going to invest in renewables knowing we can’t compete against government-funded nuclear, [so that] big gap will be filled with gas. So there’s a wedge there that’s being aimed at us.”

Painting renewables as a natural enemy of the environment and wildlife is “another fantastic wedge strategy,” Martin says, that likewise threatens to derail progress on decarbonisation, while doing nothing to address the urgent need to reform Australia’s environment and biodiversity protection rules…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/gas-trojan-horse-coalition-nuclear-push-slammed-as-fossil-wedge-aimed-at-renewables/

August 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Call to end nuclear power ban brings heated reaction in Australia

Ft.com, Nic Fildes in Sydney, 12 Aug 24

Opposition wants to change law and build new plants but critics say focus should remain on renewable energy

Liddell Power Station in Australia’s Hunter Valley burned through coal for five decades before closing last year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton now wants Liddell to be reborn as something banned in the country for a quarter of a century: a nuclear power plant. The site in New South Wales is one of seven operating or closed coal-fired plants that Dutton, leader of the centre-right Liberal party, has said could become nuclear power stations as part of a big shift in the way Australia generates its energy.

Nuclear energy is what Australia needs for its “three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”, he said earlier this year. Dutton’s pitch has pushed energy policy to the fore ahead of next year’s election, as Australia — rich in resources and a big exporter of energy in the form of coal, liquefied natural gas and uranium — grapples with how to decarbonise its economy

Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has put its focus on renewable energy, passing legislation that targets a 43 per cent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. It hopes to rapidly phase out coal — which has accounted for almost two-thirds of power generation over the past year — and deliver 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But the opposition Liberals and their allies, the rurally focused Nationals, have pledged to abandon the 2030 target and scrap large-scale wind farm projects. They say nuclear energy could deliver power from the middle of next decade………………………………..

Dutton’s plan would reverse decades of Australian policy and require changes to national and state-level laws in Australia that ban nuclear power. The ban dates from 1998, when John Howard’s conservative government offered it as a quid pro quo to minority parties for supporting the construction of a research reactor near Sydney. It remains the country’s only reactor, producing material for medical and industrial use………………………………………………………………..

Chris Bowen, Australia’s energy minister, has dubbed the opposition’s proposal “a nuclear scam” that is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky. A report in May by CSIRO, the government science agency, argued that generating nuclear energy — whether by building large-scale plants or small modular reactors — would be significantly more expensive than renewables and that building a plant would take at least 15 years. “Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050,” the report concluded.

………………………………Marilyne Crestias, interim chief executive of the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents investors in renewables, said conditions for putting money into projects had improved, but more was needed to improve confidence and clarity around policy. “We need more ambition on climate and energy, not less,” she said.

Jeff Forrest, a partner at LEK Consulting’s energy practice, said the nuclear idea was “a 2040s solution to an energy problem we’ve got today” and said there was frustration among investors and in boardrooms that long-term investment plans could be disrupted by the “left-field” nuclear debate. “Energy investment needs consistent and clear signals. That is really important for long-dated investments and no one wants the rug pulled out from under them,” he said. Around the Loy Yang coal-fired power plant in the Latrobe Valley in the state of Victoria, locals said the nuclear proposal would disrupt plans by its owners to make the region a renewable energy hub after the plant’s closure during the next decade.

Wendy Farmer, Gippsland organiser for Friends of the Earth and president of the Voices of the Valley community group, said the proposal would threaten A$50bn of planned renewable investment. “Are they telling investors to go away?” said Farmer. “Imposing nuclear on these communities without any consultation or discussion with the owners of the sites is an insult and a bullying tactic.”

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

Tim Buckley, director of the Climate Energy Finance think-tank, said the opposition’s proposals would displace private capital with a “communist-style policy” requiring more than A$100bn of public funds. “It is not impossible, but it is financially illogical,” said Buckley, who questioned the move’s political motivations ahead of an election. “This is not nuclear versus renewables. This is about extending the climate wars.”  https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

August 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment