Peter Dutton won’t back down on the Coalition’s desire to take its nuclear energy policy to the next election.
news.com.au, Eleanor Campbell, 5 Mar 24
Peter Dutton has doubled down on the Coalition’s decision to push ahead with a nuclear power policy, saying it’s the only ‘credible pathway’ to net zero.
The Opposition Leader has unveiled a draft of his energy policy to take to the next election that proposes to replace existing coal-fired power generators with a mix of small and large scale nuclear reactors to use for net-zero power sources.
He also indicated where the nuclear reactors could be located.
Mr Dutton said nuclear reactors would provide a more reliable and cheaper source of clean energy.
“The Prime Minister’s had an opportunity to put forward a plan,” the Opposition Leader said.
“He doesn’t have the guts to stand up and make the decision that our country needs made and we do need to look at the best technology, zero emissions.
“I think it’s the only credible pathway we have to our international commitment to net zero by 2050.
But his plans have been ridiculed by the Albanese government, which argues it would take “decades” to build and delay Australia’s transition to clean energy.
’Cruel hoax’: Picture has state up in arms
‘Bulldust’: Twiggy lampoons nuclear push
Why this photo sent suburb into meltdown
Peter Dutton has doubled down on the Coalition’s decision to push ahead with a nuclear power policy, saying it’s the only ‘credible pathway’ to net zero.
The Opposition Leader has unveiled a draft of his energy policy to take to the next election that proposes to replace existing coal-fired power generators with a mix of small and large scale nuclear reactors to use for net-zero power sources.
He also indicated where the nuclear reactors could be located.
“If there’s a retiring coal fired generator that’s already got an existing distribution network, the wires and poles are already there to distribute the energy across the network into homes and businesses, that’s really what we’re interested in,” Mr Dutton said
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says nuclear power is the ‘only credible’ way to net zero. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Mr Dutton said nuclear reactors would provide a more reliable and cheaper source of clean energy.
“The Prime Minister’s had an opportunity to put forward a plan,” the Opposition Leader said.
“He doesn’t have the guts to stand up and make the decision that our country needs made and we do need to look at the best technology, zero emissions.
“I think it’s the only credible pathway we have to our international commitment to net zero by 2050.
But his plans have been ridiculed by the Albanese government, which argues it would take “decades” to build and delay Australia’s transition to clean energy.
“I look forward as well to [Mr Dutton] arguing where the financing will come for such reactors, whether taxpayers will be expected to pay for this, because we know the cheapest form of energy in Australia is renewables,” Mr Albanese said.
“Every ten years there are these proposals … what never comes is any investment, because it simply doesn’t stack up commercially.”
Treasurer Jim Chalmers blasted Mr Dutton’s “nuclear fantasy”, saying his plans to overturn laws to build nuclear module reactors would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and set the country back in its efforts to reach net zero.
“It’s no surprise to anyone that Peter Dutton has gone for the most expensive option, the most divisive option and longest to build,” the Treasurer said on Tuesday.
“That’s because he’s more interested in cheap and divisive politics than cheap and reliable power. We see that in this more or less culture war over nuclear energy. This a nuclear fantasy.”
Mr Dutton said the technology was “unbelievable” compared with the 1950s and said rerouting the nation’s net-zero path towards nuclear would lead to greater financial relief for households.
Nuclear energy has been banned in Australia since laws were introduced in 1983.
A senate committee was told last year that if a ban on nuclear energy were to be overturned, it would take at least 10 to 15 years to have an operational nuclear power plant in Australia.
Nationals MP Bridget McKenzie said the opposition had anticipated pushback ahead of the announcement.
Independent MP Monique Ryan said the Coalition’s nuclear plan was unrealistic.
“Basically, what the Liberal National Party is doing is kicking the can down the road on the transition because they want to keep in with their friends. The big, you know, coal and gas suppliers because there is not a small functional small modular reactor in the world,” she said.
“I think it’s time that we acknowledge the fact that this is not a realistic plan.”…………………………………. more https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/treasurer-jim-chalmers-rips-into-opposition-leader-peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-plans/news-story/4eb130a74b64224f103e6841ed2a4283
Coalition MPs open to nuclear in their electorates
ABC News, 5 Mar 24
“…………………………………………………………………………………………. The electorates containing coal plants scheduled to close are held almost entirely by Liberal and National MPs, with the exception of Hunter MP Dan Repacholi.
Nationals MP Colin Boyce said the Callide Power Station could be a good option for a nuclear plant, if the community supported it.
“Absolutely on face value I would be supportive of looking at those options. The Callide Power Station at Biloela in central Queensland is number one on the list for closure according to the current Queensland government, so that site there, all the infrastructure that’s already there, the transmission lines, the water supplies, that would be somewhere to me that would be a reasonable outcome,” Mr Boyce said.
“I would suggest that site is a possible site for a possible nuclear small modular reactor, or something similar.
“Having said that we would have to take that to the community and gauge their thoughts on it before any decisions were made.”
He added that safety concerns held by some communities were valid, and that was why an honest conversation to address those concerns was necessary.
Nationals MP Darren Chester, who represents the seat of Gippsland where the Yallourn coal fired plant is scheduled to close, told the ABC last year he would consider a nuclear reactor in the Latrobe Valley if it made sense.
“If a potentially suitable site was identified for a nuclear power station in my electorate, it should be considered in a transparent manner with widespread consultation and an explanation of the potential costs and benefits,” Mr Chester said.
“If it was in the national interest and there were social, economic and environmental benefits, I’m sure that Gippslanders would be willing to have a constructive conversation about nuclear energy.”
Mr Chester told The Australian yesterday any government wanting to introduce nuclear would first have to reassure host communities safety concerns had been managed.
Nationals leader David Littleproud told Perth radio station 6PR yesterday he was ready to lead the way on the prospect of nuclear power in his electorate.
“I’ve got four coal fired power stations [in my electorate], I’ve made it very clear. I’m prepared to lead my community in that discussion,” he said.
“And we’ve got time, we don’t have to do all this by 2030.”
Liberal MP Rick Wilson said it would be premature to speculate on sites, but was open to the idea of a nuclear site in O’Connor.
Communities such as Collie in my electorate, which have experience hosting power stations, have high energy-IQ and their existing infrastructure and workforces could make them potential candidates to host a next-generation nuclear plant in the future,” Mr Wilson said.
He said like any major project, it would need the backing of the community.
Dan Repacholi, whose electorate contains plants scheduled for closure, has been contacted for comment. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/coalition-nuclear-plan-identifies-retiring-coal-likely-sites/103545440
Western Australia’s Premier Cook goes nuclear on Dutton’s ‘simplistic, ridiculous’ power plan
SMH, Hamish Hastie, March 5, 2024 —
A Coalition proposal to build nuclear power stations at the sites of retired or retiring coal stations is ridiculous and a distraction from efforts to reach net zero using renewables, West Australian Premier Roger Cook has said.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton floated the idea of building nuclear power stations on sites of retired coal stations – which could include the South West town of Collie – as a zero-emissions solution to the nation’s energy woes.
Cook blasted the Coalition proposal that federal Nationals leader David Littleproud was spruiking in WA this week as a fantasy.
“The rollout of small nuclear reactors or modular reactors in other countries has been halted because it’s not commercial, it’s not viable,” he said.
“In addition to that, Australia has no experience in nuclear power generation so we don’t have the workforce, we don’t have the know-how to be able to bring them in.
“You simply cannot plonk these things into a landscape and plug it into the grid. These simplistic sort of ideas are ridiculous.
“What we need to do is accept that climate change is a reality and move to exploit the abundance of wind and solar that we have at our disposal.
“There’s no quick fix here, you’ve got actually do the hard work and this is simply a sound grab by the Nationals to distract people from the real hard work which is being done.”……………………………………………………… https://www.smh.com.au/politics/western-australia/cook-goes-nuclear-on-dutton-s-simplistic-ridiculous-power-plan-20240305-p5fa0r.html
Talk of nuclear power plant sites ‘conjecture’, says Liberal MP amid internal division on Dutton’s policy
Rowan Ramsey says overturning ban on nuclear first is the ‘most logical thing’ to do as opposition leader prepares to nominate up to six locations
Paul Karp Chief political correspondent, Guardian, 5 Mar 24
The Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey has said any talk of where nuclear power plants would be built or waste would go is “conjecture” that cannot sensibly be tackled until after the nuclear ban is lifted.
As the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, prepares to announce an energy policy nominating up to six possible sites for nuclear plants, he faces internal divisions about the level of government support required, proposed locations and questions about storage of nuclear waste.
On Tuesday Dutton all but confirmed the Coalition will propose locating nuclear power plants on the site of retiring coal power plants, claiming that this would save having to build new transmission infrastructure for renewables.
The plan would suggest that the Labor-held seat of Hunter, independent Andrew Gee’s seat of Calare and Coalition-held Flynn, Maranoa, O’Connor and Gippsland are on the shortlist for nuclear power stations.
The Gippsland MP, Darren Chester, has argued that his community would need to receive “direct economic benefits” if it were to host power plants.
The Liberal MP for Sturt, James Stevens, has argued that community concerns must be allayed by explaining where and how waste will be stored. This opens another can of worms for the Coalition, as Australia has failed for decades to build a dump for its slowly accumulating intermediate nuclear waste.
Ramsey told Guardian Australia that Kimba, a proposed site for a waste dump in his South Australian electorate of Grey, was “never envisaged, planned or promised to hold high-level waste”……..
It is unclear how the Coalition’s nuclear policy hopes to overcome the enormous cost, long lead-in time and lack of private investment to make new power plants a reality.
Stevens said on Monday that “embracing nuclear generation for civilian electricity purposes is not something to be done on a whim” and that Australians would rightly want to know “how we will deal with some challenges, such as the custody of waste, the location of these generation plants”.
But the Liberal candidate for Cook, Simon Kennedy, who is likely to take Scott Morrison’s seat in parliament, argued on Tuesday that voters in his electorate are “used to” the idea of nuclear waste, because the Lucas Heights reactor – for production of medical and industrial isotopes – is “right outside the electorate”.
Kennedy told Sky News that Australians want “clean, cheap and reliable” power, accusing the Albanese government of being “ideological” for not considering nuclear.
Chester told Guardian Australia he has an “open mind when it comes to the public debate regarding nuclear energy in Australia”.
“It is premature to rule regions in or out as potential locations for a nuclear power station because there’s no proposal on the table,” he said.
“But as a matter of principle, you would need to be able to demonstrate to a potential host community, including Gippsland, that any safety concerns could be ameliorated and there were direct social and economic benefits to our community.”……………………………………
Jason Falinski, the former member for Mackellar and the New South Wales Liberal party president, told Sky News on Monday that “nuclear energy is not something that we are necessarily advocating for”.
“What we’re saying is that it should be part of the mix, part of the option available for Australian policymakers.”
On Tuesday the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, questioned where financing will come from and whether “taxpayers will be expected to pay” for nuclear, because “we know that nuclear is not only the most expensive form of new energy, it is also more than a decade off”.
“I noticed in today’s reports, [Dutton] seems to have backed away a little bit from talking about a technology that does not exist in small, modular reactors that he’s been speaking about,” Albanese told reporters on the sidelines of the Asean conference in Melbourne.
“He’s now speaking about large nuclear reactors. They need to be near populations and need to be near water.”
Albanese said “investment never comes” into nuclear because “it simply doesn’t stack up commercially”.
Dutton told reporters in Brisbane that nuclear is “the only credible pathway we have to our international commitments to net zero by 2050”.
Dutton would not rule out support for large-scale reactors, saying only that the Coalition wanted the “latest technology”.
“We’ve said we’re only interested in sites where you have an end-of-life coal-fired generation asset, so that means you can use the existing distribution network.”
Asked if taxpayers will have to support nuclear, Dutton did not respond but cited the Canadian province of Ontario and the United States as examples where businesses and households pay less for power with nuclear in the mix https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/05/peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-nuclear-power-plant-policy-locations-waste-rowan-ramsey
Coalition’s plan to go nuclear puts five regions on the table as favoured locations for nuclear reactors
ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans, 5 Feb 24
There are just a handful of regions in Australia shaping up as the most likely candidates for the Coalition’s proposal to install nuclear reactors in Australia, as the party eyes retiring coal stations as a way to go nuclear.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says he will be up front with voters about where the Coalition is looking to place potential nuclear reactors when the party announces its policy in coming weeks.
Speaking on Channel Seven this morning, Mr Dutton confirmed the party was “interested” in replacing retiring coal plants with nuclear, because the sites come ready with poles and wires to distribute power.
“If there’s a retiring coal asset, so there’s a coal fired generator that’s already got an existing distribution network, the wires and poles are already there to distribute the energy across the network into homes and businesses, that’s really what we’re interested in,” Mr Dutton said.
Doing so would leave just a narrow range of possible regions for a nuclear reactor.
The federal divisions of Gippsland in Victoria, Hunter in New South Wales, Maranoa and Flynn in Queensland and O’Connor in West Australia are the only electorates with coal plants scheduled to completely close in the next two decades.
There are also partial closures scheduled at Callide, Loy Yang and Vales Point in the NSW Central Coast, which would add Labor minister Pat Conroy’s electorate of Shortland to the list.
With its policy yet to be announced, it’s not clear what the Coalition considers as viable options.
Australia also still has a total ban on nuclear energy in place, which the Coalition would have to win the support of parliament to lift even if it won government at the next federal election.
And there are a number of safety and technical requirements for installing any nuclear reactor, such as geological stability and a readily available source of water.
The national science agency CSIRO has estimated nuclear energy from small modular reactors (SMRs), modern reactors built in a factory and then shipped to a site for installation, would also be more expensive than powering the grid through wind and solar.
The agency projected in its draft GenCost report that wind and solar would cost an average of $82 per megawatt hour by 2030, while SMR nuclear power would cost an average $282 by 2030.
Even if the nuclear ban was lifted tomorrow and a decision immediately taken to commission a nuclear reactor, CSIRO estimates the first SMR would not be in full operation before 2038, ruling it out of “any major role” in reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
Mr Dutton said nuclear reactors would provide a more reliable source of clean energy, and would avoid the need for thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines to be built.
“We need to make sure that we can firm up the renewables that are in the system. We know that of the G20 nations, Australia is the only nation that doesn’t have or hasn’t agreed to adopt nuclear power domestically,” he said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he looked forward to the Coalition announcing its nuclear policy.
“I look forward as well to [Mr Dutton] arguing where the financing will come for such reactors, whether taxpayers will be expected to pay for this, because we know the cheapest form of energy in Australia is renewables,” he said.
“Every ten years there are these proposals … what never comes is any investment, because it simply doesn’t stack up commercially…………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/coalition-nuclear-plan-identifies-retiring-coal-likely-sites/103545440
Dutton wants a ‘mature debate’ about nuclear power. By the time we’ve had one, new plants will be too late to replace coal
If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, 29 Feb 24, https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time-weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513
If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long it’s small.
Newspoll this week suggests a majority of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A poll of Australian Financial Review readers last year told a similar story.
These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are generally costlier than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers.
The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.
Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the Voygr reactor, the intended buyers, a group of municipal power utilities, pulled the plug. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage.
Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (a big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time.
So why would Australians support nuclear?
It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:
There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power costs up to ten times as much as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:
There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.
Building nuclear takes a long time
When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.
As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has pointed out, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.
The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently in Western countries including the US, UK, France and Finland.
In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them.
If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.
It would take longer in Australia
Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.
There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.
Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.
Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s investing massively in solar power and battery storage.
Time to start work is running out
The Coalition began calling for a “mature debate” on nuclear immediately after losing office.
But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election.
Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.
Andrew Forrest attacks Coalition’s nuclear “bulldust” and betraying the bush
Rachel Williamson, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/andrew-forrest-attacks-coalitions-nuclear-bulldust-and-betraying-the-bush/—
Mining billionaire and green energy evangelist Dr Andrew Forrest has come out swinging against the deepening support for nuclear, and the aversion to wind and solar power within the National and Liberal parties in the name of farmers.
Forrest called on the federal government to speed up the transition away from carbon-intensive industries via three “simple” policies, and called on the government-in-waiting to stop spreading misinformation about renewables.
In the last fortnight opposition leader Peter Dutton doubled down on his calls for small modular nuclear reactors to be put in small Australian towns, saying he’d put one on the former Alcoa mine and power station site in the coastal Victorian town of Anglesea, while energy spokesman Ted O’Brien would put one in the Latrobe Valley.
Nationals leader David Littleproud also wants to stop the rollout of large scale renewables in Australia because rural areas are “saturated” with them, and wants to limit the energy transition to residential rooftop solar and arrays on commercial buildings.
Forrest pooh-poohed their understanding of the economics of major projects, saying the Coalition proposals would leave Australia “destitute” because of the enormously cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar.
“I ask you who claim to represent the bush now to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever,” Forrest said during a talk at the National Press Club.
” We can’t, so please stop betraying the bush. If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy, and that nuclear energy will be a fairy godmother, we will be worse off again.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic plucked out of thin air, bulldust nuclear policies, [from] politicians masquerading as leaders, helps no one. Politicians who do whatever they can to discourage votes are just politicians, they are not political leaders.”
Forrest cited in particular the misinformation that Australian farmers will have to give up huge tracts of land to enable the green energy transition (a meme advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs and repeated by the likes or rival iron ore billionaire Gina Rinehart and the Coalition.
Forrest also announced a fund to help with wind and solar farm decommissioning and calling on the federal government to better regulate renewables developers to ensure they set aside money for that purpose.
It’s easy with three “simple” policies
Forrest wants to see a test for all major projects that explicitly considers climate impacts, for the country to lean into least cost, firmed renewables, and for the carbon levy proposed by Rod Sims and Ross Garnaut on fossil fuel imports and exports.
“We can circuit break the cost of living crisis, turn around unemployment and play our full part in decarbonizing at least to 6 per cent of global emissions through new green export industries,” he said.
“Australia can generate not one but many of its own Australian Aramcos with the right policy settings. We can achieve all these with three simple policies.”
An impact test would create a climate trigger for every project requiring government approval, making carbon emissions and global warming automatically part of any environmental assessment.
US president Biden has already taken some action in this vein by pausing LNG export projects pending an assessment of the impacts on climate change.
Forrest claimed that it is the US’ “forward thinking climate strategy” and not the enormous funding on offer under the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is why Fortescue is building a liquid green hydrogen project in Phoenix, Arizona.
The second policy recommendation, leaning into renewables, repeats calls to roll out renewables faster in order to bring down the cost of electricity for Australians, while the third demanded an end to the “free ride” of fossil fuel companies via a carbon levy.
“The multi decadal polluting companies have exploited vicious lobbying for approvals so they can crowd out green energy, so they can prevent Australians from having the choice between cheaper green energy, which would destroy their livelihoods,” Forrest said.
“Let’s be clear for the sake of the visionless, a carbon solutions levy is not a carbon tax… it would only be applied to the 100-odd fossil fuel extraction sites in Australia and to importers, who are stopping us making our own energy. The beauty of this levy is that it does not penalise everyday Australians.
“It only penalises that the perpetrators of this crisis, the fossil fuel industry… Existing gas projects will continue to operate, they’ll just have to pay the levy. They’ll just have to pay their way. That’ll be new.”
He even called out taxpayer support for miners to use imported diesel, naming his own company Fortescue as one beneficiary.
“Their lobby groups quickly hide behind the Australian farm to defend the diesel fuel rebate. But they know that the vast proportion of the money goes to big mining and fossil fuel companies, not Australia’s farmers or fishermen.
” The ridiculousness of the rich crying out for more fossil fuel subsidies while denying climate change will surely go down as one of the most perversely selfish behaviours in Australian history.”
Fossil fuel subsidies increased to a record-breaking $57.1 billion in 2023, up from the $55.3 billion forecast in the 2022 budget, according to a report by The Australia Institute last year.
The Fuel Tax Act which subsidises the consumption of diesel, has cost over $95 billion in tax foregone to the Australian economy, via the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS), since it was legislated in 2006.
Andrew Forrest and Peter Dutton are on a collision course over Nuclear Power
National Times 26 Feb 24
Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest labels Coalition push for nuclear energy ‘bulldust’ and a ‘new lie’ ( Paul Karp Chief political correspondent for The Guardian)
Mining billionaire says cost of nuclear will be four to five times that of renewables and opposition’s policy is ‘an excuse for doing nothing’
The mining billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has labelled the Coalition’s push for nuclear energy “bulldust” and a “new lie” that would delay the clean energy transition and harm regional Australia.
The executive chair and founder of mining company Fortescue and the renewable energy investor Tattarang on Monday urged the opposition to stop advocating expensive and unfeasible alternatives to renewables.
The Coalition is yet to produce a costed energy policy, despite arguing to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear energy and recent comments from the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, that expanded rooftop solar could be rolled out instead of large-scale renewables.
The Liberals and Nationals have complained that large-scale renewables and transmission projects will ruin agricultural land, despite experts debunking the extent of this claimed impact.
Forrest told the National Press Club that “even the fossil fuel industry has taken responsibility” for global heating, and that “doing nothing” is not an option, with Australia to face tariffs from the European Union if it doesn’t reduce emissions.
Forrest told politicians who “claim to represent the bush” – a reference to the Nationals – to “stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels for ever … We can’t. So, please stop betraying the bush.”
“If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy and that nuclear energy will be our fairy godmother, we will be worse off again,” he said.
Forrest said it was “hopeless” that politicians are asking Australians “to wait for new technology in 20 years’ time that may never happen”.
“It’s just an excuse for doing nothing. This is the straight admission that fossil fuels have to go, but their solutions risk leaving us destitute.”
According to energy department estimates for the Albanese government, replacing Australia’s coal power plants with nuclear would cost $387bn.
Forrest said he had “done the numbers” and nuclear will cost four to five times more than renewables, which can reduce emissions within a few years.
“A leader will remind the farming community offline that global warming is real and that all their customers are taking it very seriously,” he said.
“Instead of knocking a slow-moving, gracious wind turbine, try a nuclear power plant or a belching coal plant next door.
“The fact that we can feel climate change already despite the ocean soaking up most of out heat-generated emissions means Australia has finally run out of time.
“We get the next few years wrong and Australia’s economy and the rest of us cook. We get it right, and Australia enjoys decades of economic growth, full employment and reinvigoration of its natural environment.”
Forrest backed the proposal for a carbon solutions levy to raise $100bn, advanced by Ross Garnaut, a leading economist during the Hawke government, and Rod Sims, a former head of the competition watchdog.
Forrest also called for a green hydrogen tax credit to grow the industry, on top of the $2bn hydrogen head start fund, and a climate trigger to block approval of major projects if they contribute to global heating.
Forrest announced that Squadron, his renewable energy venture, will create an industry fund for decommissioning wind turbines so landowners can have “peace of mind” that the landscape will not be harmed if turbines are not renewed and extended.
Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens environment spokesperson, said that “business leaders like Forrest can see that, for the sake of our environment and economy, we need to stop expanding fossil fuels”.
“Forrest backed the growing call for a climate trigger in environment law and I hope that Labor were listening.”
Earlier on Monday the shadow energy and climate change minister, Ted O’Brien, told reporters in Canberra there was “no doubt that the experts are advising us that one of the best places to locate zero-emissions nuclear reactors would be where coal plants are retired”.
O’Brien accused Labor of “steamrolling regional communities” to build renewables, but could not say what the Coalition would do if communities around existing coal power stations objected to nuclear power.
O’Brien was unable to say how much nuclear power would cost, responding that “a lot of questions that can only be answered once we release our policy”.
“We have been formulating an all-of-the-above [technologies], balanced policy for Australia’s future energy mix.”
No nuclear option for $275m green-manufacturing and innovation grants
Sam McKeith, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/green-manufacturing-gets-275m-boost-with-launch-of-innovation-grant-scheme/
Grants from a NSW $275 million green manufacturing fund will not go towards nuclear projects as the state says the technology is not part of its plans to reach net-zero emissions.
Under the Net Zero Manufacturing Initiative program, announced on Monday, businesses can access grants for manufacture of renewable energy systems, low-carbon products and clean-technology innovation.
The program is part of the state’s legislated pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 50 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 and hit net zero by 2050.
But Climate Change Minister Penny Sharpe ruled out any grants going to projects such as the development of small modular nuclear reactors, despite a Newspoll on Monday showing two-thirds of younger Australians backed the technology.
“We’re looking at, even if you wanted to start today … a 14-year horizon to get it in the ground, which we don’t actually have,” she told reporters.
“The second point that I make is that nuclear energy is 350 per cent more expensive than renewables.”
Premier Chris Minns said the grants would bolster local manufacturing in the renewable and clean-technology industries, especially among small and medium-sized firms.
“The thing I like about this so much is that it enhances what is taking place in our research universities in the state as it currently stands,” he said.
The initiative will focus on lab-proven tech and the build of “market-ready products” ready to be scaled up and rolled out in NSW, the government says.
It comes as the state scrambles to replace ageing coal power stations with renewable energy to meet its emission targets, while also trying to keep a lid on power prices and maintain capacity.
“Stop dividing us”: Andrew Forrest attacks pro-nuclear politicians
Rachel Williamson, https://reneweconomy.com.au/stop-dividing-us-andrew-forrest-attacks-pro-nuclear-politicians/
Mining billionaire and green energy evangelist Dr Andrew Forrest has come out swinging against the deepening support for nuclear, and the aversion to wind and solar power within the National and Liberal parties in the name of farmers.
Forrest called on the federal government to speed up the transition away from carbon-intensive industries via three “simple” policies, and called on the government-in-waiting to stop spreading misinformation about renewables.
In the last fortnight opposition leader Peter Dutton doubled down on his calls for small modular nuclear reactors to be put in small Australian towns, saying he’d put one on the former Alcoa mine and power station site in the coastal Victorian town of Anglesea, while energy spokesman Ted O’Brien would put one in the Latrobe Valley.
Nationals leader David Littleproud also wants to stop the rollout of large scale renewables in Australia because rural areas are “saturated” with them, and wants to limit the energy transition to residential rooftop solar and arrays on commercial buildings.
Forrest pooh-poohed their understanding of the economics of major projects, saying the Coalition proposals would leave Australia “destitute” because of the enormously cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar.
“I ask you who claim to represent the bush now to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever,” Forrest said during a talk at the National Press Club.
” We can’t, so please stop betraying the bush. If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy, and that nuclear energy will be a fairy godmother, we will be worse off again.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic plucked out of thin air, bulldust nuclear policies, [from] politicians masquerading as leaders, helps no one. Politicians who do whatever they can to discourage voters are just politicians, they are not political leaders.”
Forrest cited in particular the misinformation that Australian farmers will have to give up huge tracts of land to enable the green energy transition (a meme advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs and repeated by the likes or rival iron ore billionaire Gina Rinehart and the Coalition.
Forrest also announced a fund to help with wind and solar farm decommissioning and calling on the federal government to better regulate renewables developers to ensure they set aside money for that purpose.
It’s easy with three “simple” policies
Forrest wants to see a test for all major projects that explicitly considers climate impacts, for the country to lean into least cost, firmed renewables, and for the carbon levy proposed by Rod Sims and Ross Garnaut on fossil fuel imports and exports.
“We can circuit break the cost of living crisis, turn around unemployment and play our full part in decarbonizing at least to 6 per cent of global emissions through new green export industries,” he said.
“Australia can generate not one but many of its own Australian Aramcos with the right policy settings. We can achieve all these with three simple policies.
An impact test would create a climate trigger for every project requiring government approval, making carbon emissions and global warming automatically part of any environmental assessment.
US president Biden has already taken some action in this vein by pausing LNG export projects pending an assessment of the impacts on climate change.
Forrest claimed that it is the US’ “forward thinking climate strategy” and not the enormous funding on offer under the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is why Fortescue is building a liquid green hydrogen project in Phoenix, Arizona.
The second policy recommendation, leaning into renewables, repeats calls to roll out renewables faster in order to bring down the cost of electricity for Australians, while the third demanded an end to the “free ride” of fossil fuel companies via a carbon levy.
“The multi decadal polluting companies have exploited vicious lobbying for approvals so they can crowd out green energy, so they can prevent Australians from having the choice between cheaper green energy, which would destroy their livelihoods,” Forrest said.
“Let’s be clear for the sake of the visionless, a carbon solutions levy is not a carbon tax… it would only be applied to the 100-odd fossil fuel extraction sites in Australia and to importers, who are stopping us making our own energy. The beauty of this levy is that it does not penalise everyday Australians.
“It only penalises that the perpetrators of this crisis, the fossil fuel industry… Existing gas projects will continue to operate, they’ll just have to pay the levy. They’ll just have to pay their way. That’ll be new.”
He even called out taxpayer support for miners to use imported diesel, naming his own company Fortescue as one beneficiary.
“Their lobby groups quickly hide behind the Australian farm to defend the diesel fuel rebate. But they know that the vast proportion of the money goes to big mining and fossil fuel companies, not Australia’s farmers or fishermen.
” The ridiculousness of the rich crying out for more fossil fuel subsidies while denying climate change will surely go down as one of the most perversely selfish behaviours in Australian history.”
Fossil fuel subsidies increased to a record-breaking $57.1 billion in 2023, up from the $55.3 billion forecast in the 2022 budget, according to a report by The Australia Institute last year.
The Fuel Tax Act which subsidises the consumption of diesel, has cost over $95 billion in tax foregone to the Australian economy, via the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS), since it was legislated in 2006.
The Victorian towns where Peter Dutton is considering going nuclear
Josh Gordon and Benjamin Preiss, February 25, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-victorian-towns-where-peter-dutton-is-considering-going-nuclear-20240223-p5f7a3.html
The Coalition is leaving the door open to building nuclear reactors in the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea using land from retired coal-fired power stations as a solution to Victoria’s energy troubles.
But locals warn there would be significant opposition to nuclear reactors being built in their towns, even if the huge legal hurdles to constructing and running them could be overcome.
With Victoria’s energy security under scrutiny after a wild storm earlier this month left hundreds of thousands of homes without power and triggered the shutdown of the state’s largest coal-fired generator, the federal opposition has confirmed it is now in the “advanced stages” of developing an energy policy. Nuclear is set to be a key part of the mix.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told The Age potential locations remained a “work-in-progress”, but he had been advised that “communities with experience hosting coal plants could be ideal potential hosts for zero-emissions nuclear plants”.
That leaves Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired power plants, plus the now decommissioned site of the Hazelwood mine and power station, as strongly preferred locations – with existing connections to the energy grid, and a ready-made workforce preparing for the end of coal-fired generation over the next 15 years.
“We have been very transparent about the fact we are considering zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of Australia’s future energy mix, and we will remain open about the details of our policy when it is announced,” O’Brien said.
The state opposition remains more cautious about the prospect of nuclear in the Latrobe Valley, but it too is not ruling out the idea. Asked about using retired coal-fired power stations as sites for nuclear energy, Opposition Leader John Pesutto said a commonsense approach was needed.
“But for any new industry to succeed it would first need detailed inquiries and thorough examination,” Pesutto told The Age. “It would also require bipartisan support, as this is crucial for investment certainty and to eliminate sovereign risk.”
Other sites in Victoria have also been flagged. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently hinted at the possibility of a small modular reactor on the Surf Coast at Anglesea, on the site of Alcoa’s former mine and power station.
“It’s zero emissions, you can put it into an existing brownfield site, so when the coal-fired generation comes to an end, you can put the nuclear modular reactors into that facility,” Dutton said in September.
The argument for nuclear is that plugging into existing infrastructure would be significantly cheaper and would reduce the need for thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines needed to connect wind and solar energy dotted across the grid.
O’Brien has previously pointed to a September 2022 study for the US Department of Energy that found using the infrastructure of an existing coal plant could reduce a nuclear plant’s capital costs by up to 35 per cent. He suggested Australia should look to the US state of Wyoming, which is planning to replace its coal-fired generators with nuclear by about 2030.
But any move towards nuclear power in Victoria would likely encounter strong resistance from communities worried about safety, waste disposal and the cost.
Voices of the Valley president Wendy Farmer said nuclear power would face major opposition from communities worried about the risks.Farmer said residents in the Latrobe Valley had already suffered the consequences of the Hazelwood mine fire in 2014, which burned for 45 days and caused health concerns for those living amid the smoke.
“I would be surprised if there would be any enthusiasm for a reactor,” she said.
Deputy Mayor Mike Bodsworth, who represents the Anglesea ward, said residents were excited by the potential for renewable power generation at the former Alcoa site.
“But nobody I know has ever mentioned nuclear,” he said. “Knowing the general preferences of the local population, I doubt it would be supported.”
The Coalition has been talking up the potential to use small-scale modular reactors to generate power, and argue this, along with gas, will be a key part of Australia’s future energy mix to provide so-called base-load generation along with variable renewables.
In May last year, US company Westinghouse released plans for a small modular reactor. Reuters reported Westinghouse planned to begin building the reactor by 2030.
But many experts say this approach would be prohibitively expensive in Australia, particularly if forced to compete against lower-cost renewable wind and solar generators now being installed at a rapid rate across the country.
The CSIRO’s best guess is that in 2030 the capital cost of a small modular reactor will be $15,844 per kilowatt of electricity generated, compared to $1078 for solar and $1989 for wind.
That suggests replacing Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired plants, which combined to produce up to 4730 megawatts of electricity, with nuclear would involve a capital cost of about $74.9 billion, before even considering the ongoing running, maintenance and waste disposal costs.
The Coalition would also need to get the numbers in state parliament to repeal existing state and federal laws, including Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983, which bans the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Victoria.
Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said nuclear energy was “toxic, risky, will take years to develop and [is] the most expensive form of energy there is”.
“Not only are the sites of our former coal plants privately owned, but there is currently no regulatory framework for approving a nuclear power plant in Australia, there are no nuclear waste storage sites in Australia, and no modular nuclear reactors have made it past the trial phase,” she said.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen said claims of a boom in small modular reactors was a myth, and suggested Dutton should explain to the people around Gippsland why they should accommodate multiple reactors “for no good reason”.
“Anyone who has done their homework knows nuclear is not viable,” Bowen said. “The alleged boom in small modular reactors is a furphy. It’s striking that a party that once prided itself on economic rationalism could embrace a frolic so spectacularly uneconomic.”
In the US, a project run by NuScale Power to build the first commercial small modular reactor was scrapped last year because of soaring costs, leaving taxpayers facing a significant bill. Other projects promising commercially competitive nuclear energy have similarly failed to materialise.
Billionaire mining magnate Andrew Forrest lampoons Coalition’s nuclear push as ‘bulldust’
A push by the Coalition to develop nuclear energy generation in Australia has been slammed by mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest.
Jack Quail, February 26, 2024 – https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/billionaire-mining-magnate-andrew-forrest-lampoons-coalitions-nuclear-push-as-bulldust/news-story/048f9a45dbb31091a4ed313479922288
Billionaire mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has rubbished a push to develop a local nuclear energy industry, even as fresh polling showed growing voter support for the proposal.
Dr Forrest took a veiled swipe at the opposition over its soon-to-be-unveiled nuclear energy policy, saying its push was “misinformed”, would act to sustain coal and gas powered generation for another two decades, and ultimately would lead to higher power prices.
“If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy and that nuclear energy will be our fairy godmother, we will be worse off again,” the chair of mining and green energy firm Fortescue told the National Press Club on Monday.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic, plucked-out-of-thin-air, bulldust nuclear policies of politicians – masquerading as leaders – help no one.”
Dr Forrest, who in 2023 ranked as Australia’s third richest person, made his billions mining iron ore but in more recent years has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy technologies and fuel, particularly green hydrogen.
Claiming he was “agnostic” on nuclear energy, Dr Forrest said the economics of such a proposal did not stack up when compared with renewable generation.
“Who is going to pay their nuclear electricity bill when it is 4-5 times more expensive than the renewables next door, even ignoring the decade plus it takes to develop nuclear?” Dr Forrest asked.
“With wind and solar, you’re up and running, lowering electricity costs and eliminating pollution within one to three years.”
The Coalition is yet to release a costed nuclear energy policy but has committed to do so ahead of the next federal election, due by May 2025 at the latest.
A Newspoll released by The Australian on Monday revealed 55 per cent of Australians support the replacement of coal-fired power plants with small modular nuclear reactors.
However, such technology is still in development, is yet to prove commercially viable, and would not be deliverable until the mid-2030s at the earliest.
The Albanese government has similarly disparaged the Coalition’s nuclear push, and has retained a ban on nuclear power and banking.
In his address, Dr Forrest also advocated for a “renewable energy-led economy”, recommending the government establish a “climate trigger” to assess the impact of carbon pollution in granting environmental approvals, rapidly expand firmed renewable energy, and introduce a levy on carbon emissions extracted from mining or imported into Australia.
“If we make the right decisions today, it will deliver the most profound and enduring economic growth opportunities ever seen, particularly in regional Australia,” he said.
Calling out the diesel fuel rebate, which costs the federal budget billions annually, Dr Forrest said the subsidy towards mining and fossil fuel companies should be scrapped.
“Massive taxpayer-funded financial support for huge mining companies, including Fortescue, to use imported diesel is indefensible,” Dr Forrest said.
Last week, Fortescue – of which Dr Forrest and his family own a 33 per cent stake – reported a 41 per cent increase in its first-half profit, beating analysts’ estimates and bucking a growing trend of sliding profitability among other major mining firms.
Australian defence: from self-reliance to subsidising US war with China
Pearls and Irritations, By Mike GilliganFeb 23, 2024
Our leaders have rendered us America’s pawn, contractually. Australia has abrogated the right to choose peace with China. Dumbly. Unnecessarily. Deceitfully. For political ends. We once had a leader who put Australia’s security before the desires of a distant, powerful protector. What is the prospect of chancing upon another of Curtinian quality?
Periodically, it is fashionable among Australia’s geostrategic glitterati to ask what to do about America, as if that’s never really been addressed. Of course, the question has dogged Australian governments and officialdom at least from the day Foreign Minister Percy Spender signed the ANZUS treaty in San Francisco in 1951. Having obtained a treaty we then wondered what it meant?
As a face-saver America agreed to a “treaty” with a non-committing clause – to “consult” should one or other party be threatened. But ever alert to political opportunity, PM Menzies acclaimed ANZUS to the Australian public as if it contained NATO’s Article 5 security for Australia. The bluster and deceit has been maintained by Australian governments and media to this day. Today most Australians believe that the US guarantees our security.
At the time even the hard-heads in Defence and Foreign Affairs were hopeful that the treaty might be interpreted generously by the Americans. But it didn’t take long for that optimism to evaporate. Repeatedly, over the first twenty years, America made it clear that it saw the treaty running in its direction. On issues with Indonesia (eg konfrontasi) Australia had unambiguous signals that we were expected to deal with regional issues independently. Meanwhile we were sending our forces into faraway situations created by the US, suffering heavy consequences viz Korea, Vietnam.
The unlikely choice of self reliance
Then in 1969 President Nixon announced the Guam doctrine – each US ally nation in Asia was considered by the US to be in charge of its own security. After two decades of Australia faffing over ANZUS, clarity emerged. The major political parties were at one that Australia should take responsibility for its own defence.
Looking back, that was an extraordinary step for Australia. We acted promptly by restructuring the defence assets – the three military arms were folded into a Defence Force with the organisation overseen jointly by a civilian and military head. Which portended a revolution in thinking.
By 1976 a comprehensive blueprint was ready. Australia’s first ever White Paper on Defence spelt out the intellectual, practical and financial basis for an Australia secured by self-reliant defences:
“A primary requirement is for increased self reliance… we no longer base our policy on expectation that Australia’s forces will be sent abroad to fight as part of some other nation’s force.
we believe that any operations are much more likely to be in our own neighbourhood than in some distant or forward theatre… we owe it to ourselves to be able to mount a national defence effort that would maximise the risks and costs of any aggression.“
For the transformation to work clarity was necessary around America’s role. Our concepts would be directed to defence of Australia. Our scarce resources would not be applied to anyone else’s priorities. It was agreed that American forces would have no operational role in our defence planning. Should America request armed assistance from us and it was judged in our interest, any contribution would be drawn from assets acquired for our own defences. But only after any competing Australian needs were met.
America fully supported this regime throughout the decades.
Australia’s defence policy unambiguously pursued self- reliance over many and varied governments. The objective was articulated in every government review and white paper – until the ascent of PM Abbott. ………………………………………………………………………………………….
Donate »
AUKUS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, POLITICS, TOP 5
Australian defence: from self-reliance to subsidising US war with China
Our leaders have rendered us America’s pawn, contractually. Australia has abrogated the right to choose peace with China. Dumbly. Unnecessarily. Deceitfully. For political ends. We once had a leader who put Australia’s security before the desires of a distant, powerful protector. What is the prospect of chancing upon another of Curtinian quality?
Periodically, it is fashionable among Australia’s geostrategic glitterati to ask what to do about America, as if that’s never really been addressed. Of course, the question has dogged Australian governments and officialdom at least from the day Foreign Minister Percy Spender signed the ANZUS treaty in San Francisco in 1951. Having obtained a treaty we then wondered what it meant? It fell short of what we asked for, which was one just like NATO’s with Article 5, please. But what Spender obtained was most unlike NATO. ANZUS holds no assurance that America will assist with armed force if Australia is attacked. It was no oversight. America tenaciously rebuffed such commitment.
As a face-saver America agreed to a “treaty” with a non-committing clause – to “consult” should one or other party be threatened. But ever alert to political opportunity, PM Menzies acclaimed ANZUS to the Australian public as if it contained NATO’s Article 5 security for Australia. The bluster and deceit has been maintained by Australian governments and media to this day. Today most Australians believe that the US guarantees our security.
At the time even the hard-heads in Defence and Foreign Affairs were hopeful that the treaty might be interpreted generously by the Americans. But it didn’t take long for that optimism to evaporate. Repeatedly, over the first twenty years, America made it clear that it saw the treaty running in its direction. On issues with Indonesia (eg konfrontasi) Australia had unambiguous signals that we were expected to deal with regional issues independently. Meanwhile we were sending our forces into faraway situations created by the US, suffering heavy consequences viz Korea, Vietnam.
The unlikely choice of self reliance
Then in 1969 President Nixon announced the Guam doctrine – each US ally nation in Asia was considered by the US to be in charge of its own security. After two decades of Australia faffing over ANZUS, clarity emerged. The major political parties were at one that Australia should take responsibility for its own defence.
Looking back, that was an extraordinary step for Australia. We acted promptly by restructuring the defence assets – the three military arms were folded into a Defence Force with the organisation overseen jointly by a civilian and military head. Which portended a revolution in thinking.
By 1976 a comprehensive blueprint was ready. Australia’s first ever White Paper on Defence spelt out the intellectual, practical and financial basis for an Australia secured by self-reliant defences:
“A primary requirement is for increased self reliance… we no longer base our policy on expectation that Australia’s forces will be sent abroad to fight as part of some other nation’s force.
“we believe that any operations are much more likely to be in our own neighbourhood than in some distant or forward theatre… we owe it to ourselves to be able to mount a national defence effort that would maximise the risks and costs of any aggression.“
For the transformation to work clarity was necessary around America’s role. Our concepts would be directed to defence of Australia. Our scarce resources would not be applied to anyone else’s priorities. It was agreed that American forces would have no operational role in our defence planning. Should America request armed assistance from us and it was judged in our interest, any contribution would be drawn from assets acquired for our own defences. But only after any competing Australian needs were met.
America fully supported this regime throughout the decades.
Australia’s defence policy unambiguously pursued self- reliance over many and varied governments. The objective was articulated in every government review and white paper – until the ascent of PM Abbott. With bipartisan acceptance, even though it meant hard, big decisions from governments. The Hawke government scrapped Navy’s aircraft carrier, to reorient our focus to land-based defences. Large expenditures went preferentially to new equipment, infrastructure and bases across the north. Our ports were a focus for anti-mining measures. We developed a peculiar hybrid of technology which overcame the tyranny of vast maritime surrounds making them a singular strength -our over- the- horizon radar network is unique, unmatched anywhere. Our confidence in detecting air movements all across our northern approaches and beyond went from zero to 95%. Similar numbers apply to ships. A profound increment in the fundamentals of maximising risk for any aggressor, with pervasive synergies.
Three decades after embarking on the self-reliance journey Australia had created a formidable capacity to “maximise the risks and costs of any aggression”. We did it our way, overcoming seemingly insurmountable barriers. With political unity generally.
Sadly, no Defence Minister ever took the trouble to explain to Australians what had been achieved – how and why we should be confident of our security without American forces.
Receding self reliance
Things changed abruptly with the Obama presidency, and its geostrategic “tilt to Asia”. President Obama’s visit here in 2010, grasped as electorally advantageous by the waning Gillard government, put an end to pursuit of self- reliance. The principles of our hard-won independence were eroded almost overnight. Unsaid. Infused with political gratuity. Obama was applauded by our Parliament in announcing that henceforth the US would rotate marine soldiers through northern Australia in increasing numbers.
At the time it looked like a US attempt to turn Australia to joining US competition with China. Ever since it has looked more and more exactly that. We are now fourteen years on from the Gillard capitulation. That period has seen continual sly, escalating obeisance to Americas objectives against China. With no heed to the contradiction that while America identifies China as its chief strategic opponent, it is both the centre of our region and Australia’s foremost trading partner.
In 2014 Foreign Minister Julie Bishop signed a “Force Posture Agreement” (FPA) with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who dines on foreign ministers. The FPA permits US naval and air forces to be based in Australia, to mount operations into our region. At America’s discretion and sole direction, with token consultation. The obvious object being China. The stationing of B52 bombers at Tindal equipped with long stand-off nuclear tipped cruise missiles (near impossible to intercept), makes the devastation of China’s big eastern cities achievable any day, by lunchtime, with confidence, on a signal from Washington.
China must now see that Australia is a permanent threat to its existence, and we have no say in that role. Because America can attack China freely from our shores the FPA effectively means that if US operations are mounted against China, from anywhere, Australia will find itself automatically at war with China.
The Abbott government knew what it was conceding to America in the FPA. Peter Dutton later as a minister of the Morrison government observed that it would be “inconceivable” for Australia not to join a US conflict against China. Yet not a murmur was heard from our Parliament following Bishop signing away our sovereignty. Or even since, ten years on. PM Albanese recently made virtue of the acquiescence saying national security was purposely quarantined from criticism when Labor was in opposition.
A profound blunder by Abbott and Bishop, impossible to overstate. Compounded by a decade of Parliamentary ignominy.
No longer is our defence spending solely for Australia’s priorities. Increasingly since the Obama visit, funds appropriated for Australia’s defence have been directed towards subsidising US confrontation with China. Alongside American staff being internalised here.
The zenith of our conservative governments’ distorting profligacy is the nuclear submarine of AUKUS. Designed to attack China’s nuclear submarines in and around its waters, it is said that PM Morrison created the arrangement in order to “make a meaningful contribution” to US operations against China. All of this project is madness- most obviously the cost borne by us. The project could only be confected by an authentic fool. Any number of credible authorities condemn it. See Hugh White recently
The Albanese government’s Defence Strategic Review (DSR) was drafted by a US- educated academic without experience of Australia’s defence or its intellectual capital. Necessarily delivering a view built on books and American perspective; now at the United States Studies Centre at Sydney University, underwritten by our Defence outlays and US patronage.
That DSR recommended that our Army be developed for amphibious attack operations -such as is embedded in US plans for combat in the Island Chain off China with US marines. One wonders how Australia’s Army greets this role- itself deeply encultured with the primacy of the direct defence of Australia.
Minister Marles then appointed a former US admiral to further review Australia’s naval future. The criteria are withheld but it’s a sound bet that the China strategy of the Pentagon was more a factor than was Australia’s self- defence. That report is in and only just responded to by government.
One could go on. Enough has been said to demonstrate that every Australian government since Gillard’s has led Australia into an embrace of US Indo- Pacific re-posturing against China – quietly, slyly, progressively conceding sovereignty and diverting effort and scarce resources from our own hard-won and capable sovereign defence prowess. Without ever frankly saying that the days of self- reliance are over: ie that Australian defence policy is now consumed by something else, contradictory to the policy of preceding decades, which essentially we have no control over……………………………………………………………………….
Australia’s leaders have deceived us into America’s service. Dumbly. Unnecessarily. For political ends. We once had a Prime Minister who, against formidable might, put Australia’s interests before the desires of a distant, powerful protector. John Curtin knew when a new time had to come. What is the prospect of Australia finding another of Curtinian quality? Able to discern and protect Australia’s interest above all others’, against the tide. The rest would follow.
(Postscript: I had the privilege of a working career in the body created to steward the transformation of the 1976 White Paper, “Force Development and Analysis Division” in Defence.) https://johnmenadue.com/australian-defence-from-self-reliance-to-subsidising-us-war-with-china/?fbclid=IwAR0fPj_1371XgvhwCoMD5-mqO8TFydpNE6a84LWapaC94FV27vJlyBOZLTM
Dutton goes nuclear on government’s renewable plans
The Age, By Mike Foley, February 16, 2024
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is ramping up his campaign against the Albanese government’s renewable energy goals, making the claim that next-generation nuclear technology is a cheaper, more reliable alternative to wind and solar energy.
Dutton claimed on Friday the government’s renewable goals would drive household power bills “through the roof” and argued nuclear was a climate-friendly option, setting up an energy policy clash with Labor at the federal election due by May next year.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese won the 2022 election pledging to more than double the share of clean energy to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030. This is a cornerstone of Labor’s commitment to cut greenhouse emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by the end of the decade.
Albanese said on Friday the government had capped the price of coal and gas to lower electricity prices. The government says its renewables policy will lower power bills by $275 a year by 2025.
But Dutton said Australia needed to have a “mature” conversation about nuclear.
“There are 20 countries similar to ours … who have a nuclear industry or they’re committed to do so,” he told media in Adelaide…..
However, experts say nuclear technology is more costly than renewables and would take decades to deploy if Australia lifted its long-standing ban on nuclear power.
The small modular reactors Dutton favours are not in commercial production. Some companies are conducting research and are expected to take several more years to build a working unit.
US company NuScale Power was developing the world’s most advanced commercial SMR project in Utah, but the project was abandoned in November due to a 70 per cent blowout in project costs.
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was also a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, said it would take at least 20 years from the ban being lifted until a reactor could start generating electricity for the grid.
The government would need to dramatically beef up its nuclear regulation, which was currently equipped only to oversee radioisotopes used in medicine, select sites for construction of a reactor and for waste disposal, and set up a fund for decommissioning.
Finkel said it would also need to wait for a jurisdiction with regulations similar to Australia, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada or Europe, to deploy a small modular reactor.
“We are a laggard in the nuclear power industry, we’re not going to suddenly become a trailblazer,” he said.
“It’s very hard to imagine that [deploying nuclear energy] being done in less than 20 years from today.”
……..”if you want to get a fast transition to a low-emissions electricity system, the only option we’ve got today is solar and wind,” he said.
The CSIRO’s GenCost report in December calculated the 2023 costs of electricity generation for renewables, coal and small modular reactors and projected what they would be in 2030.
It found that a mix of wind and solar power in 2023 would generate electricity for $90 to $134 per megawatt hour, falling to $70 to $100 by 2030. These costs include investment of $30 billion to upgrade transmission lines to link wind and solar farms to the grid, and to build back-up power such as hydro dams.
…….If small modular reactors were available today, CSIRO estimated they would generate electricity at a cost of $380 to $640 a megawatt hour, dropping to $210 to $350 in 2030. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-goes-nuclear-on-government-s-renewable-plans-20240216-p5f5g3.html
Parliament votes in favour of bringing Assange home
By John Jiggens | 15 February 2024 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/parliament-votes-in-favour-of-bringing-assange-home,18333—
In a historic vote, parliamentarians have shown unprecedented support for the return home of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange. Dr John Jiggens reports.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY turned out to be an unanticipated Happy Valentine’s Day for Julian Assange supporters. The Australian House of Representatives passed a motion introduced by Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie, on behalf of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange, urging the U.S. and the UK to bring their prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder to a close and allow him to return to his family and home in Australia.
The vote was 86 for Yes (ALP, Greens and Independents) and 42 for No (mostly Liberal and National).
In an unprecedented show of parliamentary support for Assange, two-thirds of the lower house voted for the motion. It was not unanimous because Coalition members overwhelmingly chose to support the U.S. and UK in what the former UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, described as the torture of an Australian journalist.
Greens leader Adam Bandt appealed to the Coalition to support the motion. Assange has become symbolic of journalists around the world who face attacks on press freedom, he argued, ranging from political prosecutions through to murder.
Assange’s prosecution set a chilling precedent for journalists about their ability to hold governments to account and to tell the truth without facing imprisonment and without facing a risk to their own lives.
Bandt said:
“If governments think that participation in the AUKUS agreement and alliance is so critical, surely part of that should be the insistence on human rights and the proper treatment of our citizens — of Australian citizens. If we are sitting around a table with these governments, we should be able to insist that Julian Assange is brought home.”
His appeal fell on deaf ears — it remained AUKUS regardless of any cost.
For Assange, the situation is still perilous. He remains incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh in the UK, where he has spent the last five years, locked down for 23 hours each day in a three-metre by two-metre cell, unconvicted of any charges, an innocent man in a living hell, like Dylan’s ‘Hurricane’. Like Nelson Mandela, he walks his long walk to freedom around that tiny cell every day.
In one week, the UK High Court will decide whether he has exhausted all his legal appeals to prevent being extradited to the USA where he would face charges that could see him imprisoned for 175 years under their notorious 1917 Espionage Act for publishing material, which revealed shocking evidence of misconduct by U.S. forces.
As Senator David Shoebridge tweeted on the day of the vote:
‘There are real concerns that if Julian loses next week he will be immediately extradited.’
In this epic David versus Goliath mismatch, one lone Australian journalist pitted against the world’s greatest empire, it was rare good news. Members and supporters of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange tweeted happily.
Andrew Wilkie, Convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Assange:
‘I successfully moved a motion to recognise the importance of bringing Julian Assange’s extradition to an end. The Govt voted for it in an unprecedented show of political support for Julian. The US must heed these calls & drop the extradition. #FreeAssangeNOW #auspol #politas.’
Adam Bandt, Leader of the Greens:
‘Today – for the first time – the House voted to call on the UK & the USA to bring Julian Assange home. His family, the people and this Parliament want him home.
PM — it’s time we make this a reality.’
Dr Monique Ryan, Independent member, Kooyong:
‘A powerful moment. Today the Government and crossbench called on the United States and the United Kingdom to stop prosecuting Julian Assange so he can come home. This is the ultimate test of our nations’ friendship and I sincerely hope it is heard.’
David Shoebridge, Greens Senator:
‘Today the House of Representatives has voted in favour of a motion from my Parliamentary Friends of Assange colleague @WilkieMP on the need to bring Julian home. This is a genuinely historic moment and a testament to the work of so many for so many years. 86-42 vote.’
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 