Peter Dutton wants Australia to jump on the VERY UNECONOMIC “nuclear train”
| NUMBERS NUKE PETER’S PIPE DREAM – Crikey Worm 18 Sept 23 |
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report.
Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”./************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************/**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.lOpposition Leader Peter Dutton’s push to switch coalmine sites out for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) would cost us $387 billion, the Department of Climate Change and Energy found, because we’d need at least 71 to match the coal power. Guardian Australia reports that’s about $25,000 a taxpayer — far more per megawatt hour than cheap power from the sun or wind, per the latest Net Zero Australia report. Not that it’s stopped Dutton from droning on about Australia needing to jump on the “nuclear train”. Do we? China has 50 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity and 95-120 gigawatts of solar expected this year alone, The Conversation adds. Multibillion-dollar SMRs in the US, France, Finland and the UK have either blown way over budget, way over time, or been abandoned altogether. This comes as the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy — whose biggest member, the AFR ($) notes, is uranium miner BHP — told the state government nuclear is the “logical solution”.
Nuclear energy remains weapon of choice for climate deniers and coal lobby.
ReNeweconomy, Giles Parkinson 11 September 2023
The Nationals, and the Liberal Party coalition partners, are in furious
agreement: They are not the slightest bit serious about strong climate
action, and the only difference between former National leader Barnaby
Joyce and current leader David Littleproud is that Joyce wants to stop the
pretence.
Littleproud, let’s remember, believes that net zero 2050 means
not having to do much any time soon. Like too many corporates, and the
fossil fuel industry in particular, it’s an excuse to sit around and do
nothing – make some grand promises and wait for some new technology to come
along that doesn’t disrupt their business plan. Nuclear, and small modular
reactors, are a perfect tool for this. SMRs don’t exist in any western
country, do not have a licence to exist, and no-one – even in the nuclear
industry – seriously believes they will be in commercial production within
a decade, if then.
Renew Economy 11th Sept 2023
Waste site: Govt reveals bill for dumped Kimba nuclear facility
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
The high cost of the federal government’s failed bid for a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been revealed.
Resources Minister Madeleine King says that $108.6 million was spent on preparations for establishing the now dumped National Radioactive Waste Management Facility near Kimba between July 1, 2014, and August 11, 2023.
The figure was given in response to a Senate Question lodged by Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick on August 11, but information relating to his questions about further expected expenditure of taxpayer dollars around the project was not provided.
King was asked whether the government planned to select a new site before May 17, 2025 – the last date before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can call a federal election – or whether the Woomera Prohibited Area in SA’s outback was being considered.
“Information on expenditure and site selection will be available once the government has considered options and made decisions in due course,” SA Labor Senator Don Farrell said while answering the question on behalf of King.
The news comes after the federal government announced in August it was walking away from the Napandee plan after seven years of consultation and promises of around $31 million in incentives for the Kimba region.
Its decision was triggered by a Federal Court ruling in favour of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation’s battle to stop the low-level waste repository on the Eyre Peninsula.
The costly court battle centred on the Barngarla arguing that Indigenous owners were not consulted by the former Morrison Government when it announced it had won “majority support” of 61 per cent in the community for the Napandee site.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth quashed former Liberal Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s decision to build the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba, saying it was affected “by bias”.
InDaily reported last year that in reply to questions on notice, SA senator Barbara Pocock heard that since January 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Government had spent at least $9,905,737 on legal work for the nuclear waste dump and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency.
Work has now been halted at the Napandee site and King said work already completed would be reversed.
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
“It was clear back in February 2018, when I initiated a Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, that the selection process had gone off the rails,” Patrick said.
“The then government were cautioned about the flawed nature of the process, but ignored the findings and recommendations of the inquiry.
“There is a $110 million dollar lesson for the current Government in the need to engage the community and listen when dealing with these sorts of programs.”
He called on the federal government to be more open with the community with its AUKUS nuclear submarine program in relation to what will happen in relation to nuclear stewardship, operational radioactive waste and dealing with spent nuclear fuel rods.
Federal government spent $100 million on now abandoned nuclear waste dump near Kimba
ABC News, By Ethan Rix, 12Sept 23,
Key points:
- The Federal Resources Minister said the government had spent $108.6 million
- The Commonwealth abandoned plans to build the facility after a Federal Court ruling
- Former SA senator Rex Patrick said the “waste” of taxpayer money could have been avoided
………………………. Senator Rennick also questioned whether the government would find a new location for the NRWMF before May 17, 2025 and if the government would consider placing the facility within the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Ms King said that information about a future site and any further spending would be available once the government had “considered options and made decisions in due course”……………………………………………………………
Former resources minister had ‘foreclosed mind’
Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth found there had been apprehended bias in the decision-making process under then-resources minister Keith Pitt.
Justice Charlesworth found that Mr Pitt — who formally declared the site in 2021 — could be seen to have had a “foreclosed mind” on the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made up”.
The court set aside the declaration from 2021 that the site at Napandee, a 211-hectare property, be used for the facility.
Following the Federal Court ruling, Ms King told federal parliament in August that Australia still needed a nuclear storage facility and that the government remained committed to finding a solution that did not involve the Napandee site.
………………………………Mr Patrick said he was concerned that the current Labor government had not learnt any lessons from the recent Federal Court ruling.
“The lesson that needs to be learned, in relation to this, is you need to properly engage [with] a community to get a social licence,” he said.
He said it was clear the government “has their eye on” the Woomera Prohibited Area as a potential location for the facility, which is a military testing range more than 400 kilometres north of Adelaide.
“They are simply not being transparent — they’re not talking about it and that’s going to end up in tears in several years’ time.”
A spokesperson for Ms King said she has instructed her department to develop “policy options” for managing Commonwealth radioactive waste into the future. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/commonwealth-kimba-napandee-nuclear-waste-dump-100-million/102840994
Nuclear submarines are now a core Labor value?
By Margaret Reynolds, Sep 9, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-submarines-are-now-a-core-labor-value/
Perhaps AUKUS should be renamed MAUKUS – the Morrison, Albanese, United Kingdom and United States agreement – to clearly identify those responsible. Indeed, it is surprising that neither Defence Minister Richard Marles nor Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy invited Australian Labor Party National Conference delegates to support a motion of appreciation to former Prime Minister Morrison for providing a ready-made defence policy for the Labor Government.
Does Kim Beazley support AUKUS as an Historian, Former Defence Minister or Former Ambassador to the United States?
As a former Defence Minister it is entirely predictable that Kim Beazley would be an enthusiastic cheerleader for the massive $368 billion nuclear submarine deal now in place. Writing with Peter Dean for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, “The Strategist”, Beazley celebrates the success of AUKUS at the recent ALP National Conference in Brisbane.
“There was no rebellion. In the end support for AUKUS was resoundingly endorsed.”
However, as an historian he should be more diligent in presenting evidence to support his claim.
In the lead up to the National Conference, there was considerable angst within government and party hierarchies, anxious about dissent on two fronts, AUKUS and Palestine. The Prime Minister himself led the charge announcing there would be no debate on these policy issues. Clearly this was unacceptable and mobilised many members in Labor branches and trade unions to express their concerns about the way a major defence decision had been taken without open and independent consideration about the risks and costs to the Australian community. The need for an AUKUS debate at the National Conference became a media focus so ultimately of course the ban was withdrawn.
However, it is important to record that at the conclusion of debate the vote was not put to conference delegates for a democratic show of hands to record the numbers in support as that was deemed too politically risky. Instead, this motion of such significance to the future of Australia was passed on the voices and various reports have estimated that about one third of delegates voiced their opposition.
The ALP National Conference focus on AUKUS has revealed grass root activism across Australia questioning our lack of independence, our increased militarisation and unknown agreements which lock us into future American defence policy. Labor Against War, a network of ALP branches, is leading a strong and growing movement against Australia outsourcing its defence policy. Unionists, students, church and peace groups are active in many communities determined that Australia must not be led into another war launched from Washington. The Australian Education Union is leading a revolt against the way the Defence Department is encroaching on schools’ curriculum and university students oppose those staff who welcome defence grants to further the training of nuclear submariners.
Furthermore, a number of these groups are already in contact with our Asia Pacific neighbours who are distressed that so many billions of dollars are being directed into our military infrastructure while Australian dollars are so limited in tackling the impacts of climate change in the region.
The Lowy Institute April 2023 Survey of Australian attitudes reveals that neither the Albanese Government nor the Australian Labor Party can assume their current defence policy is “resoundingly endorsed“ by the community. Polling attitudes to defence policy show widely divergent opinions.
- 48% consider AUKUS will make us safer, while 44% consider the agreement makes us less safe.
- Nuclear powered submarines are supported by 33%, but only 28% consider they will deter conflict, while 30% believe they will contribute to greater risk.
- The cost of Australia’s nuclear powered submarine program is supported by 27% but rejected by 44%.
- 28% consider Australia should invest more in defence to deter our enemies but 40% wanted investment closer to home.
- There was limited support for foreign military to be based in Australia with 22% supporting the UK and 17% the U.S
Neither the Albanese Cabinet nor the defence and security establishments can ignore the increased disquiet many Australians share about the way AUKUS has been imposed on future generations without rigorous scrutiny and independent assessment. We have witnessed two Prime Ministers, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese, fail their due diligence test requiring expert analysis of the economic, social and environmental impacts of AUKUS. Perhaps indeed this defence policy should be renamed MAUKUS, -the Morrison, Albanese, United Kingdom and United States agreement to clearly identify those responsible! Indeed, it is surprising that neither Defence Minister Richard Marles nor Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy invited National Conference delegates to support a motion of appreciation to former Prime Minister Morrison for providing a ready-made defence policy the Labor Government could so easily adopt!
According to the article in “The Strategist”:
“Nuclear powered submarines are now a core Labor value and a critical part of the party’s platform to support both deterrence and self-reliance.”
Really? Just how could nuclear powered submarines be regarded as a core value? How will Australia’s eight nuclear submarines deter an aggressor? And how does an outsourced defence policy make us self-reliant when it ties us closer to allies with a record of warfare?
The US Congressional Research Service has reported 251 American military interventions around the globe 1991 -2021 (Multipolarista, September 2022) so it is only realistic for Australians to worry about our future security depending on a country so preoccupied with military solutions.
Kim Beazley has a proud record of service to the Australian people and long history of commitment to the real values of the Australian Labor Party.
Perhaps as he takes on his new role as chair of the Australian War Memorial, he will need to review his understanding of Australia’s war history, which highlights the tragic consequences of Australia’s subservience to foreign governments.
Nuclear shift and net zero feud stir Nationals’ leadership tensions
SMH, By Paul Sakkal, September 9, 2023
A nuclear policy overhaul backed by a trio of Nationals MPs and a push to ditch the Coalition-backed net zero emissions target has intensified pressure on leader David Littleproud and reignited the party’s long-standing climate feud.
Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said he wants Australia to talk about building conventional nuclear plants, days after conservative Queenslanders Keith Pitt and Matt Canavan urged Coalition MPs in a private meeting to consider the merits of the technology.
Until now, debate on nuclear energy has been confined to the prospect of what are known as small modular nuclear reactors, which are supported by the Coalition. But Pitt and Canavan put the far more expensive and controversial idea of traditional plants on the agenda in Tuesday’s Coalition party room meeting, according to five MPs who spoke anonymously because the meetings are confidential.
Joyce said debate on large-scale nuclear plants was valid, and claimed Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who strongly rejects nuclear options, was more pro-renewables than climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has criticised the German government for reopening coal mines instead of keeping nuclear plants alive…………………………..
The climate change mitigation policy is hated by right-wingers such as Pitt and Canavan. However, it is supported by Littleproud and politically important for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to win the votes of those who worry about climate change. Dutton reaffirmed his commitment to net zero on Friday………………………….
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel said last month said it would take decades for Australia to develop a nuclear energy industry, and he and other experts rejected the push to switch focus from renewables to nuclear energy as implausible………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-shift-and-net-zero-feud-stir-nationals-leadership-tensions-20230908-p5e367.html
All the way with Anthony A – Labor locks in AUKUS support despite union opposition
by Zacharias Szumer | Aug 19, 2023
The Labor Government’s continuation of the Morrison-era AUKUS agreement, and a $350 billion spend on nuclear-powered submarines, was expected to be the most contentious issue at the Labor conference this week. After a minor scuffle, the PM emerged victorious. Zacharias Szumer reports.
Going into the conference, the way AUKUS debates would proceed still seemed a partially open question. Most presumed backroom deals would minimise any open conflict, but there was still a few unknowns.
As it played out, delegates were only able to vote on whether those submarines should be nuclear, and after the Government’s side prevailed, another motion that proposed removing all references to AUKUS from the platform was shelved.
In the end, debate over AUKUS came down to two different amendments.
The first was a proposal for a 1,300-word pro-AUKUS “statement in detail” to be added to that party’s platform, which was brought by Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy.
The other – brought forward by Electrical Trades Union (ETU) national secretary Michael Wright and supported by Member for Fremantle Josh Wilson – was essentially that statement with all references to nuclear technology taken out.
One proposed amendment was:
“Making our contribution to the collective security of our region … is at the heart of Australia’s strategic intent behind acquiring a conventionally-armed, modern and fit for purpose nuclear-powered submarine capability.”
And another:
“Labor will ensure that the nuclear-powered submarine program will deliver secure, well-paid unionised jobs…”
There’s plenty more for those interested in plumbing the depths. They can read the entirety of the amendments here and here.
After a day and a half of largely frictionless procedure, the AUKUS debate saw not just the first moment of open conflict, but the first animated audience participation of conference proceedings.
Marles’ received a strong round of applause from delegates when moving to the lectern to make his opening statement, but was met with boos from some as soon as he mentioned the word “nuclear.”
The obligatory Curtin references
Marles said AUKUS followed in the footsteps of WWII Labor prime minister John Curtin, who “made the decisions which gave Australia its independence.”
“This isn’t giving us independence … It’s tying us to the US,” shouted a voice from the stands………………………………………..
Rank and file opposition to AUKUS
With that motion carried, it was declared that the conference wouldn’t hear a third amendment that would remove all reference to AUKUS from the party’s platform. That motion was brought by NSW Legislative Council member Anthony D’Adam, who told MWM that the outcome was “predictable” but still “disappointing.”
Nevertheless, he said forcing AUKUS onto the agenda “was a victory for the rank and file.”
Around 50 of Labor’s roughly 800 branches have passed broad anti-AUKUS motions, and two former federal senators, Doug Cameron and Margaret Reynolds, have signed on as the founding patrons of Labor Against War (LAW).
National convenor of LAW Marcus Strom told MWM that it was only a “partial victory” for his group because “what we’re having is a partial debate.”
In addition to not hearing the stridently anti-AUKUS motion, the party also reportedly knocked back an application from LAW to hold a stall and event at the conference fringe, which hosted a series of panel discussions on the sidelines of the main proceedings.
However, Strom said that the anti-nuclear proposal received support from “a broad coalition, and it’s something to build on.”
Around 50 of Labor’s roughly 800 branches have passed broad anti-AUKUS motions, and two former federal senators, Doug Cameron and Margaret Reynolds, have signed on as the founding patrons of Labor Against War (LAW).
National convenor of LAW Marcus Strom told MWM that it was only a “partial victory” for his group because “what we’re having is a partial debate.”
In addition to not hearing the stridently anti-AUKUS motion, the party also reportedly knocked back an application from LAW to hold a stall and event at the conference fringe, which hosted a series of panel discussions on the sidelines of the main proceedings.
However, Strom said that the anti-nuclear proposal received support from “a broad coalition, and it’s something to build on.”………………………………………………
MWM reached out to Marles’ office on Friday afternoon to discuss the merits of Marles’ approach but didn’t receive a reply.
So much Labor hope is riding on an empty vessel
Labor’s leaders have put staying in government first. But it’s a bit pointless when they cannot even persuade their own supporters why they are taking the positions they are.
AFR Laura Tingle, Columnist 18 Apr 23
On one side of the discussion there was a disparate collection of people expressing concerns about a profound policy shift which has a multitude of troubling – and unanswered – questions attached to it.
On the other, a cabinet full of ministers who before September 15, 2021, when it was announced by Scott Morrison, had never remotely considered that Australia buying nuclear-powered submarines from the Americans was obviously the strategic……………………………. (Subscribers only) https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/so-much-labor-hope-is-riding-on-an-empty-vessel-20230814-p5dw8a
Coalition’s campaign for nuclear energy implausible, experts say
SMH. By Mike Foley, August 21, 2023
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel says it would take decades to develop a local nuclear energy industry, as he and other experts reject the Coalition’s push to switch focus from renewables to nuclear energy as implausible since Australia needs urgent replacement for its ageing coal-fired power plants.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants Australia to deploy emerging nuclear power technology, while Nationals leader David Littleproud has criticised what he calls the government’s “reckless race to renewables” and asked for the government’s clean energy target to be paused and reconsidered.
The Albanese government has pledged to more than double the amount of power the electricity grid sources from renewables to 82 per cent by 2030, to help achieve its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by the same deadline.
Federal parliament banned nuclear power in 1998 and the moratorium has remained in place with bipartisan support, but Dutton is calling for the deployment of small modular reactors to reduce emissions from the electricity sector, instead of renewables that require a vast array of new power lines to link wind and solar farms to the cities.
Finkel said it was highly unlikely that Australia could open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s, pointing out the autocratic United Arab Emirates took more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plan using established technology………………………………………………..
Responding to assertions that small modular reactors, which are smaller than traditional nuclear plants, may be quicker and cheaper to build, Finkel said: “The reality is, it’s not being done in Europe and America.
“There’s no operating small modular reactor in Canada, America or the UK, or any country in Europe.”
Finkel noted that private company Nuscale is aiming to commission 12 small modular reactors starting from 2029, but he said it would probably take at least a decade to follow suit in Australia.
“I just can’t see anything less than 10 years from the time that the [Australian] government saw Nuscale start operating in America,” he said.
……………………………Energy analyst Dylan McConnell said deploying a small modular reactor at an old coal plant would not be the “plug-and-play” operation some optimists have suggested.
“You would have to decommission the existing coal plant and then build a new nuclear plant,” he said.
Alison Reeve, a climate and energy expert at the Grattan Institute, said investors could not start to investigate a nuclear project in Australia until the moratorium was lifted by federal parliament, and it would probably take years after that for states to pass their own laws and for a regulatory framework to be developed.
“This is not as simple as just removing the moratorium and then everything will be fine,” Reeve said. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition-s-campaign-for-nuclear-energy-implausible-experts-say-20230821-p5dy2a.html
‘Unbelievable’: Defence spends $8.5m on consultants for AUKUS nuclear regulator
Greens defence spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge said: “It’s genuinely unbelievable that in the middle of a national scandal about outsourcing core government functions to the big four consultants, Defence has gifted an $8.5 million contract to one of them to design a new national nuclear regulator.
“It was always wrong to have Defence in control of its own regulator for the AUKUS nuclear submarines, and now we can see how they have hand-picked a pro-nuclear consultant to design the whole thing.”
SMH, Matthew Knott, August 21, 2023
One of the big four consultancy firms will receive almost $8.5 million in taxpayers’ money over the next year to help design a new agency to monitor safety issues associated with Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact.
The Defence Department contract with EY, also known as Ernst & Young, comes amid a growing debate about the federal public service’s reliance on advice from external consultants for tasks that would previously have been performed in-house.
The Albanese government announced in March that it would create a new agency, known as the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator, to “regulate the unique circumstances associated with nuclear safety and radiological protection across the lifecycle of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine enterprise”.
The regulator, which will sit within the Defence Department, will also monitor infrastructure and facilities associated with the AUKUS pact such as the yet-to-be determined east coast submarine base.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stared down concerns from Labor’s Left faction about AUKUS, including about nuclear safety and the risks of nuclear proliferation, at the party’s national conference on the weekend.
Earlier this month the Defence Department revealed that it had awarded a 12-month contract to EY worth $8.4 million to advise on the design of a future nuclear regulatory agency.
Greens defence spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge said: “It’s genuinely unbelievable that in the middle of a national scandal about outsourcing core government functions to the big four consultants, Defence has gifted an $8.5 million contract to one of them to design a new national nuclear regulator.
“It was always wrong to have Defence in control of its own regulator for the AUKUS nuclear submarines, and now we can see how they have hand-picked a pro-nuclear consultant to design the whole thing.”
Shoebridge said he was troubled by EY’s deep connections to nuclear companies including US firm NuScale Power Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Co, as well as its role as the longstanding auditor for Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Company, which operated the now decommissioned Fukushima power plant.
“This contract needs to be torn up and then this core duty of government, designing a nuclear oversight agency, needs to be done by government, not by a hired gun from the big four,” Shoebridge said………………………………………………………………………………………..
EY declined to respond to questions about the contract.
During a Senate appearance in July EY Oceania chief executive David Larocca distanced the firm from rival PwC, which is under fire for leaking confidential government information to its clients.
Shoebridge said the nuclear safety regulator should sit inside a separate department – such as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water – rather than Defence to ensure it could provide independent oversight of the AUKUS submarine program.
…………………………… The government has been widely expected to name Port Kembla, in the Illawarra region of NSW, as the east coast base for Australia’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, but the idea has attracted a backlash from residents and unions.
The government has said it will store nuclear waste from the AUKUS submarines on defence land. Woomera in remote South Australia is seen as the most likely location. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/unbelievable-defence-spends-8-5m-on-consultants-for-aukus-nuclear-regulator-20230820-p5dxxo.html
Why the Coalition backs nuclear
“Our sense of this is that nuclear is a debating issue that gives the Coalition cover for its quite diverse and often quite split positions … It enables them to not have to announce what their actual policy position is.” (Dave Sweeney of Australian Conservation Foundation)
The Saturday Paper, By Mike Seccombe, AUGUST 19 – 25, 2023 | No. 463
Previously staunch opponents of nuclear energy in the Coalition are now backing it as an alternative to renewables, despite largely unproven technology, long delays for approvals and the unsolved problem of waste. .
In his younger days, Ted O’Brien, the federal shadow minister for climate change and energy, was strongly anti-nuclear. But these days, he marches with a different crowd. Indeed, he leads it.
Tony Abbott is among them. As is Gina Rinehart, the richest person in the country. And Warren Mundine, a leader of the campaign against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. And Andrew Liveris, an architect of former energy minister Angus Taylor’s abortive “gas-fired recovery” plan. And the climate change sceptics at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). And a raft of right-wing commentators, particularly in the Murdoch media, which also dutifully records each new salvo fired by Rinehart, Mundine, Liveris and others on the latest front in the climate wars.
The front is the battle for acceptance of nuclear power as an alternative energy source to renewables.
It is perhaps unsurprising things have come to this. Despite the efforts of the last federal government to slow-walk the shift to renewables and to extend the life of fossil fuels – particularly the dirtiest of them, coal – it has long been increasingly obvious they are on the way out. There will never be another coal-fired power station built in this country. Gas is an expensive alternative of very limited and declining utility.
Having spent years fomenting resistance to wind and solar, battery storage and new transmission infrastructure, the political right could hardly be expected to reverse course. Nuclear, though, presented an opportunity for differentiation. And so, last month, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton grasped it firmly. In a speech to the IPA, he accused the Albanese government of “renewable zealotry … putting our nation at risk”.
“The Albanese government is recklessly rushing to renewables and switching off the old system before the new one is ready,” he said.
………… Dutton offered a new variation on an old, radioactive theme.
………………… [Dutton advocated] “next-generation nuclear technologies which are safe and emit zero emissions. Namely, small modular reactors, or SMRs. And microreactors or micro modular reactors – MMRs – which are also known as nuclear batteries.”
A single SMR, Dutton said, could power 300,000 homes. An MMR could power a hospital, a factory, a mining site or a military base…………………………………. Dutton was singing from the songsheet Ted O’Brien has been assiduously composing for years.
………………. In 2019, the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, chaired by O’Brien, conducted an inquiry into nuclear power.
Interestingly, it did not give a blanket endorsement. It found Australia should definitely reject old nuclear technology, but conditionally approve new and emerging technologies of the sort Dutton spoke about. There were dissenting reports from Labor members on the committee and the independent Zali Steggall.
The report’s title was “Not without your approval”, a recognition that nukes faced a big problem in gaining social licence.
It stressed that nuclear plants and waste facilities should not be imposed on local communities.
The response – or rather lack of response – from O’Brien’s superiors suggest they also worried about its public acceptability. The government made no move towards addressing the threshold problem with having nuclear power in Australia: that it is illegal under two separate pieces of legislation, passed under the Howard government.
…………. The most optimistic forecasts, including by O’Brien himself, suggest that even if new legislation were passed to remove the existing bans, it would take at least five years to get a reactor approved, up and running. A significant weight of expert opinion suggests far longer – probably 10 to 15 years.
Way back in 2006, the Howard government appointed the nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski from the board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to conduct a review of Australia’s possible nuclear future.
The review concluded nuclear power would likely be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than power from a new coal-fired plant. It would take 10 to 15 years, and government subsidies, to get any nukes into the grid. Switkowski also foresaw cost reductions in renewable generation that would make them even more competitive.
That was before SMRs were contemplated, of course, but in the years since, the calculus hasn’t changed much, except that renewables and storage have become cheaper and faster.
Big questions remain about the cost of power from SMRs and the timeframes for deploying them.
Even Dutton’s assertion that modular reactors are a “feasible and proven technology” is questionable. They certainly look feasible, but they are hardly proven.
Mark Ho, newly elected president of the Australian Nuclear Association, an independent professional body of nuclear advocates, says there are currently just two operational SMRs in the world – one in Russia and one in China. Many more are in prospect. According to Dutton – and there is no reason to doubt him – 50 or more countries “are exploring or investing in new SMRs and nuclear batteries”.
But they are a way off being operational, Ho says. “In the US, there’s two leading designs, the NuScale reactor and BWRX, slated for completion by 2029.” In the UK, Rolls-Royce plans to have a first SMR up and running by 2029. Others are under development in Canada and elsewhere, Ho says, all looking to be operational around the end of the decade.
These timeframes mean SMRs would do nothing to help Australia meet its 2030 emissions reduction target…………………
It’s noteworthy that none of the talk reflects an actual policy commitment, says Dave Sweeney, nuclear-free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation. “Our sense of this is that nuclear is a debating issue that gives the Coalition cover for its quite diverse and often quite split positions,” he says.
The debate gives the impression that the conservative parties are sincere about finding the best way forward, he suggests, when in reality a significant portion of its ranks “just don’t want renewables” and remain committed to fossil fuels.
“It enables them to not have to announce what their actual policy position is. When asked what is their response to energy and climate issues, what they say is ‘we need to consider everything’,” says Sweeney.
“They talk about the need for discussion, conversation, all that sort of stuff – as if we haven’t talked about it and had royal commissions about it and federal/state inquiries about it ad nauseam.”
Which is essentially what O’Brien tells The Saturday Paper when asked what the opposition’s actual policy is………………………..
The opposition is constrained, too, by its internal divisions. Sweeney cites a recent example, from last month’s Liberal National Party Queensland convention, “where there was a motion to support nuclear and [state party leader David] Crisafulli just slapped it down”.
……………………………………………………….. The same pro nuclear argument was made by Coalition senators in a report from yet another parliamentary inquiry, which came down last week.
The impetus for this one was a private member’s bill introduced last year by a Nationals senator and implacable foe of renewable energy, Matt Canavan, and co-sponsored by eight other conservatives. Its purpose, Canavan told the Senate, was to remove the bans on nuclear power “because that would be the best way to take advantage of future technological developments that could see nuclear energy as the most competitive carbon free option to produce electricity”.
Two pieces of Commonwealth legislation prohibit nuclear power in Australia. They are the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, and they prevent the construction or operation of nuclear facilities for power generation, as well as facilities for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste.
A further complication is that the three large east coast states, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, also have legislation prohibiting the construction of nuclear plants, while Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory have legislation that prohibits the transport or disposal of nuclear waste.
Canavan’s bill was duly shunted to a committee, and when it reported back, it was, to no one’s surprise, split.
The majority recommended the bans remain, citing eight reasons: that “next generation” nuclear technology was unproven; that expert evidence held it would take 10 or 15 years to come online, by which time it would be unnecessary because Australia would have hit its 83 per cent emissions reduction target; that it was inflexible in its output; that it posed risks to human health and the environment; that it required vast quantities of water for cooling; that it created national security risks because neighbouring nations might suspect we would make nuclear weapons, and might in response target us; that it lacked a social licence and that renewables were cheaper.
Coalition members produced a dissenting report…………………………..
Regardless of the relative merits of the competing arguments, what mattered was what always matters in politics: the numbers. And the government had the numbers on the committee, just as it has the numbers in the parliament. So the ban on nukes stays, so long as Labor and the anti-nukes who dominate the cross benches hold power.
And they hold power so long as public opinion is with them.
On that front, much has been made in conservative media of an opinion poll taken in May, which found 45 per cent of voters either strongly or somewhat supported nuclear power as a domestic energy source, with 23 per cent opposed and the rest undecided. It also found 51 per cent support for removing the bans on nuclear energy.
The poll was commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, a body that has long supported the nuclear industry, but the questions asked were pretty straightforward.
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll that asked voters if they would like to see a nuclear plant or waste facility in their electorate. Because you can bet that’s the scare campaign nuclear opponents would mount if the opposition formally adopted the position Dutton, O’Brien, and the conservative members of that committee have intimated.
And in that case, you really have to wonder whether the endorsement of such prominent supporters as Gina Rinehart, Tony Abbott, Warren Mundine and Andrew Liveris and the power of the IPA or even the Murdoch media would sway many votes. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2023/08/19/why-the-coalition-backs-nuclear
Albanese defends against attempt to strike nuclear submarines out of Labor platform
ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans; 19 Aug 23
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has fought off an attempt to have references to nuclear-powered submarines struck from Labor’s platform.
Key points:
- The government has faced off a motion to strike nuclear-powered submarines from Labor’s platform
- Some delegates wanted to avoid Labor committing to nuclear submarines, which are fiercely opposed by some members
- The party instead resolved to redouble its non-nuclear efforts
Mr Albanese is in favour of the AUKUS defence deal with the United States and United Kingdom, as he attempts to quiet internal rebellion against the plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
……………………………… “If you come to the position, as I have, that Australia as an island continent needs submarines, then it is compulsory … that nuclear-powered submarines are what Australia needs.”
It was Mr Albanese’s only intervention into a debate at the conference so far.
The government succeeded in blocking the rebellion, as well as ensuring Friday morning that the conference was prevented from debating a wider motion to have references to “AUKUS” struck from the platform.
Electrical Trades Union secretary Michael Wright, moving the attempt to have references to nuclear propulsion struck from the platform, said his union did not support AUKUS.
“Why would this decision we are taking here not ripple around the world?
“Serious questions must be asked: is this the best way of securing our national interest? Is this the best spend of $360 billion?” he asked.
Mr Wright said Labor should not lock nuclear submarines into its platform, but “keep the window open” for further debate.
Defending the government’s policy, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia’s security depended on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
“In a difficult moment, Australians are looking to us. I know the word ‘nuclear’ evokes a strong reaction, but we are not talking about nuclear weapons.
“We will never base nuclear weapons on our shores.”
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy told Labor delegates only “strength” would deter war, not “appeasement”.
Labor MP Josh Wilson, one of the only government MPs to break ranks on AUKUS, said the decision to acquire nuclear-propelled submarines was “not justified”.
“To a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Deterrence is not a one word justification for every defence position,” Mr Wilson said.
“And with the greatest respect to delegate Conroy, the suggestion that anyone who questions a particular defence and security decision or acquisition is in the game of appeasement … is ridiculous.”
Government seeks to reassure rank and file, redoubling non-nuclear commitment
The government instead moved to recognise “the growing danger that nuclear weapons pose” and committing the government to redouble its efforts towards nuclear disarmament in an effort to settle disquiet within its ranks on AUKUS.
Several local branches have opposed AUKUS and the pact now faces a challenge from internal group Labor Against War, represented by former senators Doug Cameron and Margaret Reynolds.
Outside the conference, Labor Against War convenor Marcus Strom said Friday’s debate at the conference was just the beginning of a campaign against AUKUS.
“The best opposition we get is, ‘Look, let’s keep things calm, we don’t want to scare the horses ahead of elections,’ but this is more important than one election, one parliament, one government,” Mr Strom said.
“This is a 30-year program, multi-billion dollars of wasted opportunity we could be spending on housing, on cost of living pressures, on the transition to a green economy.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/government-defends-aukus-at-labor-conference-nuclear-submarines/102745950
AUKUS a cover for the Coalition’s nuclear power agenda
By Jim Green, Aug 18, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-a-cover-for-the-coalitions-nuclear-power-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR0tsw-FLtHUY-EFgpbh_b1Lm2jlJSceGe5qkDm0EaLfgKe7NPUlExm4DQw
The federal Coalition’s dissenting report on a Senate inquiry into nuclear power claims that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power on August 11. The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia. A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.
The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future”.
The Coalition Senators put forward a suite of false and questionable claims in their dissenting report: that nuclear power is expanding worldwide; it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
The Coalition’s economic illiteracy
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.
It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same”. He bases his calculation on the assumption that a small modular reactor (SMR) would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year. But reactors typically generate about 7.2 TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300 MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2 TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.
Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”
SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.
Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear lobbyist to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.
Cost blowouts
The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”
Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from A$25-30 billion per reactor?
The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”
However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.
As for private-sector SMR projects, not one has reached the construction stage anywhere in the world — and perhaps none ever will.
The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission commissioned research on the economic potential of two SMR designs: Generation mPower and NuScale Power.
Generation mPower was abandoned in 2017, and NuScale is struggling. Despite lavish US government subsidies, NuScale is struggling to secure private-sector finance to get the project off the ground and it still has licensing hurdles to clear.
NuScale’s latest cost estimates indicate it has no hope of competing with renewables. NuScale estimates capital costs of A$14.4 billion for a 462 MW plant, with levelised costs estimated at A$138 per megawatt-hour. The Minerals Council of Australia states that SMRs won’t find a market unless they can produce power at a cost of A$60‒80 / MWh.
NuScale’s history can be traced to the turn of the century but it hasn’t even begun construction of a single reactor. Likewise, Argentina’s SMR project can be traced back to the last millennium but it hasn’t completed construction of a single reactor.
A dog whistle to climate denialists
Continue readingA profound change’: AUKUS debate looms for Labor’s rank and file.
The New Daily James Robertson 15 Aug 23
At this week’s ALP national conference, delegates will vote on a proposal to remove an expression of support for the AUKUS security pact in Labor’s platform.
Some 400 party members will attend the conference, which will be in Brisbane and run from Thursday to Saturday.
One of two motions expected to be put to the conference stops short of rebuking AUKUS but would instead amend the party’s draft platform on defence by removing an explicit endorsement.
“Our self-reliant defence policy will be enhanced by strong bilateral and multilateral defence relationships, including AUKUS,” the platform currently reads.
The proposed amendment would delete the words “including AUKUS”.
Under the deal, Australia will acquire and build nuclear-powered submarines from America and the UK.
Five federal electorate councils have passed motions either expressing reservations about AUKUS or calling for it to be reviewed or delayed, according to a tally kept by Labor Against War, a party activist group.
A spokesman for the group, Marcus Strom, said the conference motion was a significant step, noting earlier reports that it would not be on the agenda.
“Forcing AUKUS to be debated is a victory for the rank and file,” he said. “The first of many, we expect, as we campaign against it.”
Members of the Labor Left will comprise a majority of delegates.
But they are not expected to vote as a unified bloc on either defence policy or a vote to elect party executive members.
Supporters of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, both of the Left, are not expected to back the AUKUS amendment.
It will be brought by NSW MP Anthony D’Adam, from a grouping once known as the “soft” Left and historically a rival to Mr Albanese’s support base.
ALP president Wayne Swan said last week he expected a conference debate on AUKUS in keeping with Labor tradition.
“National defence has always loomed large in our national conferences,” he said.
Majority support
But the former Treasurer predicted most delegates would support the Prime Minister’s position.
“Our position in the region has changed so dramatically in the last decade or so [that it] has brought about a profound change […in] our defence stance and orientation,” he said.
Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy held a briefing for party members on AUKUS via Zoom on Monday night.
Mr Marles described AUKUS as a “difficult call” but said it had been the right decision, one person on the call said.
AUKUS also includes a second phase for sharing advanced defence technology.
US representatives are pushing for export controls to be eased so Australia can access these technologies more quickly, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
In October, Mr Albanese will be received at a state dinner in Washington.
Other issues on the agenda in Brisbane……………https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/08/14/aukus-debate-labor-conference/
Senate inquiry nixes nukes. Here’s why
Renew Economy, Jim Green 15 August 2023
The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power last Friday.
The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia.
A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.
The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future.”
The majority report gives the following reasons for its conclusions:………………………………………………………………….
Coalition Senators’ dissenting report
The Coalition’s dissenting report was endorsed by Senators Matthew Canavan and Gerard Rennick (Qld), Alex Antic and David Fawcett (SA), Hollie Hughes and Ross Cadell (NSW), Richard Colbeck (Tas), and Matt O’Sullivan (WA).
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of opposition leader Peter Dutton.
The Coalition Senators argue in their dissenting report that nuclear power is expanding worldwide – it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; SMRs are the bees knees; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.
Is nuclear power growing? No – it has been stagnant for the past 30 years and if there’s any non-trivial change over the next 20 years, it will be downwards.
Just 16 per cent of the world’s countries operate nuclear power reactors (31/195), so clearly the Coalition Senators are wrong in describing Australia as a nuclear “outcast.”
Nine per cent of the world’s countries are building reactors (17/195), 91 per cent are not. Only six countries are building more than two reactors.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects record global renewable capacity additions in 2023 amounting to 440 gigawatts. Nuclear power has gone backwards so far in 2023, with a net loss of one reactor or 2.4 gigawatts.
The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have increased to 38 per cent of total global generation. Nuclear power has fallen below 10 per cent and will likely never reach double figures again.
Economics
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.
It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same.” He bases his calculation on the assumption that a “small-body reactor” would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.
But reactors generate about 7.2TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of oppositi
Is nuclear power growing? No – it has been stagnant for the past 30 years and if there’s any non-trivial change over the next 20 years, it will be downwards.
Just 16 per cent of the world’s countries operate nuclear power reactors (31/195), so clearly the Coalition Senators are wrong in describing Australia as a nuclear “outcast.”
Nine per cent of the world’s countries are building reactors (17/195), 91 per cent are not. Only six countries are building more than two reactors.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects record global renewable capacity additions in 2023 amounting to 440 gigawatts. Nuclear power has gone backwards so far in 2023, with a net loss of one reactor or 2.4 gigawatts.
The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have increased to 38 per cent of total global generation. Nuclear power has fallen below 10 per cent and will likely never reach double figures again.
Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”
SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.
Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear enthusiast to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.
The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”
Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from $A25-30 billion per reactor?
The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”
However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.
In the UK, the government insisted that reactors would not be subsidised, but the UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for two reactors under construction at Hinkley Point – the only reactor construction project in the UK – could amount to £30 billion (A$58.6 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94.4 billion).
A dog whistle to climate denialists
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that nuclear must be in the mix “if we are serious about the reduction of emissions to meet targets”.
But the Coalition isn’t serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. ……………………………………….
Promoting nuclear power doesn’t provide the Coalition with any cover or credibility. The Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, speaks for those of us with a genuine interest in reducing greenhouse emissions. The Council issued a policy statement in 2019 concluding that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be”…………..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/senate-inquiry-nixes-nukes-heres-why/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 