Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge
The Coalition’s attitude to batteries has been hostile and ignorant. There’s no reason to believe its consideration of submarine propulsion technology has been any more adult. The post Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge — RenewEconomy https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-good-batteries-bad-morrisons-subs-deal-is-thin-edge-of-wedge/
Dr. Jim Green 17 September 2021 A 2019, a federal government-dominated parliamentary committee released a report on nuclear power titled ‘Not without your approval’. The report emphasised that nuclear power would not be pursued without community support.
But now, the government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines, with or without your approval, and any consultation will be tokenistic. This is the DAD ‒ Decide, Announce, Defend ‒ approach which is the antithesis of good government.
We only need to go back to the 2016 decision to purchase French-designed submarines to see how poor decisions can be made even when tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars are at stake.
Rex Patrick ‒ a South Australian Senator and former submariner ‒ said: “The main question about @ScottMorrisonMP’s nuclear sub announcement is simple. Why should we expect his ministers and defence bureaucrats to do any better with this deal than their previous procurement disasters? No grounds for confidence there.”
Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear subs could easily collapse for any number of reasons including economics (eight nuclear subs will cost north of A$100 billion, and decommissioning and waste management could cost just as much), the availability of comparable or superior options, and public and political opposition.
Alternatives
Because the internal discussions and international negotiations have been secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology.
The Coalition’s attitude towards batteries for energy storage has been hostile and ignorant, and there’s no reason to believe that consideration of advanced battery submarine propulsion has been any more adult.
A majority of Coalition MPs support repeal of federal laws banning nuclear power even though it is vastly more expensive than renewables ‒ and significantly more expensive than renewables plus backup stored power.
Put this all together in the mind of defence minister Peter Dutton and it’s a culture war: nuclear good, batteries bad, own the Libs.
Simplistic, ideological thinking appears to go beyond the Coalition culture warriors. I’m told by the author of a book on Australian submarines that “there’s a phenomenon I refer to as “nuclear zealotry” which seems to be alive and well in parts of the Australian submarine community”.
Nuclear power
All countries operating nuclear submarines ‒ the five ‘declared’ weapons states plus India ‒ have both nuclear power and weapons.
Then Defence Minister Christopher Pyne noted that in 2019 that Australia would be the only country in the world with nuclear submarines but no domestic nuclear industry to back them up. Hence the earlier preference for non-nuclear subs.
Building a domestic nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines would be astronomically expensive and problematic in other respects.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted that the nuclear submarine proposal won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia. But within hours of the AUKUS announcement, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) called for the repeal of laws banning nuclear power in Australia ‒ laws which might need to be amended to accommodate nuclear subs.
“Now that Australia is acquiring nuclear submarines which use small reactors, there is no reason why Australia should not be considering SMRs [small modular reactors] for civilian use,” the MCA said, adding that SMRs “will provide some of the cheapest zero emission 24/7 power available.”
Even by the standards of the pro-coal, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables MCA, that’s a grotesque lie. Power from SMRs would be far more expensive than that from conventional nuclear ‒ which is far more expensive than renewables.
Hence the paucity of investment in SMRs and the insistence of would-be developers that taxpayers should shoulder the risk.
The far-right culture warriors will argue that it is absurd to pursue submarine reactors but not land-based reactors for power generation. They will argue that it is absurd to pursue military reactors but not civil reactors.
Sane Coalition MPs understand that nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and a political non-starter. Their patience and resilience will be tested as the nuclear culture wars drag on and on.
Nuclear weapons
Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability via a nuclear submarine program? Does that partly explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Nuclear submarines would certainly bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability, whether or not that is part of the plan. At a minimum, staff trained for a nuclear submarine program could later find themselves working on a weapons program.
The northern suburbs of Adelaide would become Australia’s second hub of nuclear expertise along with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s research reactor site south of Sydney. (ANSTO’s predecessor, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, was heavily involved in the push for nuclear weapons in the 1960s.)
Will the Morrison government insist on some degree of technology transfer as part of the submarine negotiations, such that Australia develops some degree of nuclear reactor manufacturing capability? That will be a test of the government’s true intentions, but of course the negotiations will be conducted in secret and the rest of us can only speculate.
Will Australia’s pursuit of nuclear subs encourage other countries to do the same? Will Indonesia take steps to move closer to a nuclear weapons capability as Australia deliberately or inadvertently does the same? If so, Indonesia will likely seek to acquire nuclear subs or nuclear power or both.
Uranium enrichment
Most nuclear subs use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. The use of HEU fuel in nuclear subs is a huge problem, accounting for a majority of the non-weapons use of HEU.
So, will Australia insist on the use of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel ‒ which is still problematic since it presumes the existence and operation of enrichment plants, but is preferable since LEU cannot be used directly in weapons? If so, what are the implications for submarine performance, reactor lifespan and refuelling requirements, etc.? Or will we contribute to the proliferation of HEU?
There will be another push for uranium enrichment in Australia. In the mid-2000s, then Prime Minister John Howard likened uranium enrichment to value-adding to the wool industry ‒ an absurd comparison since enrichment provides a direct pathway to fissile material for weapons, in the form of HEU.
Australia’s involvement in enrichment R&D began in 1965 with the ‘Whistle Project‘ in the basement of Building 21 at Lucas Heights. Those in the know were supposed to whistle as they walked past Building 21 and say nothing about the enrichment work.
The government claims that the pursuit of nuclear-powered subs won’t undermine the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But a decade ago, Australia colluded with the US to take a sledgehammer to the NPT by allowing nuclear trade with (and uranium sales to) India, a violation of the NPT principle of prohibiting nuclear trade with non-NPT states.
And even if the NPT is not further weakened by the pursuit of nuclear-powered subs, immense damage can be and often is done within the framework of the NPT. The proliferation of HEU is a case in point.
Nuclear waste
The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.
No country in the world has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world ‒ the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US, for disposal of long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste ‒ was shut down from 2014 to 2017 following a chemical explosion in a waste barrel, with costs estimated at $2 billion.
Waste from a nuclear submarine program would be dumped on Aboriginal land, as is the case with the federal government’s current plan to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Kimba in SA despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners.
It speaks volumes about the crude racism of the federal and SA Coalition governments that they are prepared to ignore unanimous Aboriginal opposition to a nuclear dump.
The federal government even fought to exclude Traditional Owners from a so-called ‘community survey’. SA Labor’s policy is that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear facility including a nuclear waste dump.
The high-level and long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear submarines would cost many billions of dollars to dispose of, based on cost estimates overseas.
For example, the cost estimate for a high-level nuclear waste repository in France is A$40 billion. The US government estimates that to build a high-level nuclear waste repository and operate it for 150 years would cost A$130 billion.
The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated a cost of A$145 billion over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning of a high-level nuclear waste repository.
It is highly unlikely that the government has considered these massive long-term costs in its secret deliberations. Submarine decommissioning is also likely to be an expensive and potentially dangerous nightmare for future generations to grapple with.
Minerals Council quick to see nuclear submarines as step to nuclear Australia
The nuclear option: will submarines be a Trojan Horse for reactors? Crikey, KISHOR NAPIER-RAMAN SEP 17, 2021
The PM has said the deal doesn’t mean nuclear reactors for Australia, but many Coalition MPs want the moratorium on nuclear power to end.
Scott Morrison tried to be very clear yesterday: Australia’s nuclear submarines would not be a Trojan Horse for a military or civilian nuclear program. That didn’t stop his announcement making people excited.
Within hours, the Minerals Council of Australia’s CEO Tania Constable called the move “an incredible opportunity for Australia’s economy”. “Now that Australia is acquiring nuclear submarines which use small reactors, there is no reason why Australia should not be considering small modular reactors for civilian use,” she said……. (subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/09/17/will-submarines-be-a-trojan-horse-for-reactors/
Nuclear-powered submarines a ‘terrible decision’ which will make Australia ‘less safe – Australian Greens
Nuclear-powered submarines a ‘terrible decision’ which will make Australia ‘less safe’
Greens leader Adam Bandt has raised concerns over Australia’s acquisition of technology for nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK, calling it a “terrible decision” which will make “our country less safe”.
While there have been no serious incidences with the UK and US nuclear-powered submarines in their history, Mr Bandt pointed out New Zealand will not allow the nuclear vessels in their waters.
“Australia will be writing a blank cheque, we will be spending untold billions on a fleet of floating Chernobyls,” Mr Bandt told Sky News Australia.
Mr Bandt said Australia was buying “a nuclear reactor in a box” and noted if the US decides to change the technology or withhold support, “we are at their mercy”.
“It’s really concerning the Prime Minister is calling this ‘a forever partnership’, because it means if another Donald Trump comes back in the United States, we are now … a small arm of their nuclear capacity.” https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/nuclearpowered-submarines-a-terrible-decision-which-will-make-australia-less-safe/video/bc91f5690c3
”No need to relax the ban on nuclear energy ”- Scott Morrison
There’s no need to do that’: Prime Minister rejects calls for nuclear power in Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has quashed the hopes of Australian nuclear energy advocates, despite agreeing to a new nuclear-powered submarine deal with the Unites States.Sky News 17 Sep 21
Australia contains a third of the world’s uranium, but the Prime Minister told Ben Fordham “there’s no reason for Australia to need to” relax the ban on nuclear energy.
The reactors powering the new submarines will be built overseas and imported.
“This doesn’t require the development of Australia’s civil nuclear capability.
“Australia has capability here – we don’t come to this new – but in terms of going ahead with a civil nuclear capability, that is not something that is linked to this decision.” https://www.2gb.com/theres-no-need-to-do-that-prime-minister-rejects-calls-for-nuclear-power-in-australia/
Of course Tony Abbott has to put his pro nuclear oar in.
Tony Abbott says Australia’s decision to secure nuclear submarines sends a message of ‘don’t mess with us’
Tony Abbott says Australia’s trilateral security partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States indicates “we are prepared to act to meet the common danger”. Bryant Hevesi Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s landmark deal to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines through a new trilateral security partnership sends a message to other countries of “don’t mess with us”. ……
It’s a brave decision because it overturns decades of strategic caution and it’s an important decision because it indicates that we are going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States and United Kingdom………. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/tony-abbott-says-australias-decision-to-secure-nuclear-submarines-sends-a-message-of-dont-mess-with-us/news-story/620b73a358062f3808a3cf89faa790cd
Senator Rex Patrick calls for Inquiry before Australia moves to buy USA nuclear submarines
Senator calls for inquiry before move to nuclear sub fleet https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-news-live-australia-us-and-uk-to-unveil-new-defence-pact-nsw-health-staff-yet-to-get-covid-vaccines-victorian-lockdown-could-ease-20210915-p58rw3.html By Daniella White
Senator Rex Patrick, a former navy submariner, has called for a senate inquiry before Australia moves to a nuclear fleet of submarines.
His comments come as Australia, the US and Britain prepare to unveil a landmark new security pact which may include sharing nuclear submarine technology.
Senator Patrick said it could be difficult to support nuclear-powered submarines in a country like Australia that does not have an established nuclear industry.
“But there’s no question that before this decision can be taken we need to have a Senate inquiry, there’s so many sort of complex issues,” he said on ABC Radio.
“If it’s a US submarine, they have highly enriched uranium in their reactors and that creates a proliferation issue in terms of Australia standing up saying, no one should have this sort of fuel available to them.
“Yet we might end up having to have that on our submarines.”
Senator Patrick said Australia would save far more money by walking away from its troubled $90 billion deal with France to build submarines, than if it proceeded with it.
“It’s almost unbelievably costly in the context of what other countries pay for submarines,” he said.
Nuclear powered submarines for Australia
But now, the federal government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines and any consultation will likely be tokenistic. This is the DAD ‒ Decide, Announce, Defend ‒ approach which is the antithesis of good government.
Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear submarines could easily collapse for any number of reasons ‒ economics, the availability of superior options, public and political opposition etc.
Dr. Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia, online at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/nuclear-powered-submarines-for-australia/ 16 Sept 21,
Following secret deliberations, the Morrison government has announced that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
Alternatives
Because the process has been entirely secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology to power submarines (South Korea’s choice after 30 months of comprehensive evaluation).
Weapons / security
Nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons notes: “Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”
The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people? What alternative locations have been considered, if any?
Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability with a nuclear submarine program? Do such deliberations explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton actively opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Broader nuclear industry?
Then Defence Minister Christopher Pyne noted that in 2019 that Australia would be the only country in the world with nuclear submarines but no domestic nuclear industry to back them up.
All countries operating nuclear submarines (the five ‘declared’ weapons states plus India) have both nuclear power and weapons.
Building a domestic nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines would be astronomically expensive and problematic in other respects. Nuclear power is vastly more expensive than renewables ‒ and significantly more expensive than renewables plus backup stored power (batteries, pumped hydro storage, etc.)
Opposition leader Anthony Albanese says that Labor support for nuclear submarines is conditional on there being no requirement for a domestic civil nuclear industry (among other conditions).
Nuclear waste
The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.
No country in the world has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world ‒ the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US, for disposal of long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste ‒ was shut down from 2014 to 2017 following a chemical explosion in a waste barrel, with costs estimated at $2 billion (clean-up, lost income etc).
Waste from a nuclear submarine program would be dumped on Aboriginal land, as is the case with the federal government’s current plan to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Kimba in SA despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners. It speaks volumes about the crude racism of the federal and SA Coalition governments that they are prepared to ignore unanimous Aboriginal opposition to a nuclear dump. The federal government even fought to exclude Traditional Owners from a so-called ‘community survey’. SA Labor’s policy is that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear facility including a nuclear waste dump.
Economics
The high-level and long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear submarines would cost tens of billions of dollars to dispose of, based on cost estimates overseas. For example, the cost estimate for a high-level repository in France is A$40 billion. The US government estimates that to build a high-level nuclear waste repository and operate it for 150 years would cost A$130 billion. The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated a cost of A$145 billion over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning of a high-level nuclear waste repository.
It is highly unlikely that the government has considered these massive long-term costs in its secret deliberations.
Democracy
A 2019, a federal government-dominated parliamentary committee released a report on nuclear power titled ‘Not without your approval’. The report emphasised that nuclear power would not be pursued without community support.
But now, the federal government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines and any consultation will likely be tokenistic. This is the DAD ‒ Decide, Announce, Defend ‒ approach which is the antithesis of good government.
Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear submarines could easily collapse for any number of reasons ‒ economics, the availability of superior options, public and political opposition etc.
What does the nuclear submarines announcement mean for Australia?
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney explains what today’s
announcement – that Australia’s next submarine fleet will be nuclear-powered – might mean
for Australia.
“While there is much we still don’t know about the new defence deal with the USA and
Britain, this is a significant move with serious implications for Australia.
“Nuclear powered submarines pose specific environmental and security concerns – to
Australian ports, shipyards and seas.
16 Sept 21, “At this stage it’s not clear whether the plan is to manufacture nuclear-powered submarines in Australia or to assemble submarines that have been purchased from the UK and the US, but regardless this announcement raises concerns about the management of nuclear waste and the human and environmental impacts.
“This arrangement will further imbed Australia into global war-fighting plans and is a blow to Australian sovereignty.
“It is worth noting the UK and USA are both in breach of their international obligations on nuclear weapons.
“ACF welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment today that this new arrangement does not signal a move towards domestic nuclear power or nuclear weapons. “Australians could have confidence in the Prime Minister’s statement if he signed and ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons now. “Not to do so leaves the door open for a future stealthy slide towards nuclear weapons.
“Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by onboard nuclear reactors. “The controlled splitting of atoms releases heat which boils water and generates steam. This in turn drives turbines that power the propellor and provide electricity for the vessel. “Nuclear power does not require air, so the submarine can remain submerged for long
periods.
“It is likely these submarines would be prohibited from visiting New Zealand and many
Pacific nations that have bans on nuclear-powered vessels.
Too slow, too expensive: Why nuclear power makes no sense for Australia — RenewEconomy
Nuclear makes no sense economically and it makes no sense because we have better, cheaper and more viable energy alternatives right now. The post Too slow, too expensive: Why nuclear power makes no sense for Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Too slow, too expensive: Why nuclear power makes no sense for Australia — RenewEconomy
As predictable as the sun rising in the east, or the Nationals having a leadership spill, Australia is once again facing a campaign from nuclear advocates to start a nuclear energy industry on our shores. This is a rabbit hole we have been down before and the basic facts haven’t changed – nuclear energy remains too expensive, too slow to build, and makes no sense for Australia.
It makes no sense economically and it makes no sense because we have better, cheaper and more viable energy alternatives right now. We should be pursuing the much cheaper alternative of firmed renewables that will reduce power bills for Australian households and businesses while also reducing Australia’s emissions. Nuclear is another
distraction obstructing us from realising our real need – affordable,clean and reliable energy.
Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him — RenewEconomy
Morrison says he has no plans for nuclear power plants despite nuclear subs deal. But conservatives and the pro-nuclear lobby won’t stop trying. The post Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him — RenewEconomy
Prime minister Scott Morrison insisted on Thursday morning that the landmark nuclear submarine deal struck with US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia.
“Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. And we will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” Morrison said.
On the issue of nuclear power plants, don’t believe him. Morrison could hardly have said anything else. It’s one thing to announce a switch to nuclear powered submarines without any broad social discussion, but quite another to commit the country to nuclear power.
But the pro-nuclear lobby – both within and without the federal Coalition government – won’t be able to help themselves, even if the reality is that the sub construction won’t likely even start for the best part of a decade, such is the complexity of the technology.
The lobby will say it is bizarre that Australia could be the only country in the world planning to sustain a nuclear powered submarine fleet without a civil nuclear industry. And the argument is already being put that if Australia is happy to host nuclear power in a tin can under the sea, then why not in a land-based power plant.
Australian Greens blast nuclear submarine deal.
Floating Chernobyls: : Greens blast sub deal https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/floating-chernobyls-greens-blast-sub-deal-c-3978289, Matt CoughlanAAP, September 16, 2021
The Greens have warned Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines will create “floating Chernobyls” in the heart of major cities.
The UK and US will give Australia access to top secret nuclear propulsion technology for a fleet of new submarines to be built in Adelaide through new security pact AUKUS.
Greens leader Adam Bandt believes the move increases the prospect of nuclear war in the region and puts Australia in the firing line.
“It’s a dangerous decision that will make Australia less safe by putting floating Chernobyls in the heart of our major cities,” he told the ABC on Thursday.
It’s a terrible decision. It’s one of the worst security decisions in decades.”
Mr Bandt said the Greens would fight the decision and urged Labor to do the same.
“The prime minister needs to explain what will happen if there’s an accident with a nuclear reactor now in the heart of one of our major cities?” he said.
“How many people in Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth, will die as a result of it? What is going to happen if there is a problem with one of the nuclear reactors?”
It is understood the submarines will not require a civilian nuclear capability but rather will have reactors and fuel which will last the life of the vessel.
Independent senator and former submariner Rex Patrick wants an urgent parliamentary inquiry to report before the next federal election.
Senator Patrick, who has been a vocal critic of the $90 billion French submarine deal that is now over, said scrutiny was crucial.
We have to be careful we don’t move from one massive procurement disaster into something else that hasn’t been thought through properly,” he said.
The government has sunk $2.4 billion on the French program and is negotiating on other compensation, which remains commercial in confidence.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese and three senior frontbenchers received a briefing ahead of the announcement on Thursday morning.
Napandee radioactive waste dump plan – a nuclear waste of money.
“A Nuclear waste of money – Greenies”The Advertiser 14Sept 2021 p.9 MICHELLE ETHERIDGE
RADIOACTIVE waste should be stored at an expanded nuclear medicine production site in Sydney, rather than shipped to Kimba, opponents of the Eyre Peninsula project say.
The federal government has set aside $59.8m over four years for an expansion of “temporary” nuclear waste storage at Lucas Heights, NSW. During a parliamentary committee hearing on Monday, conservation groups argued the project rendered unnecessary a plan to move intermediate-level waste to a new facility near Kimba, where it is to be stored for several decades.
The federal government says space for some types of nuclear waste at Lucas Heights will be exhausted by 2027 and the expansion will provide at least a further 10 years’ capacity until the new national radioactive waste site planned for Napandee, near Kimba, is operational about or after 2030. Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins, said his organisation supported keeping the waste at Lucas Heights until a longterm deep geological (underground) repository was found.
“I and others are genuinely scratching our heads as to why this waste from ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology) is being transferred from one temporary place that’s safe and secure to another place on an interim basis. This is … a phenomenal waste of money,” he said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney said waste could become stranded at Kimba in the absence of a long-term plan. ANSTO staff said the new Lucas Heights facility would have a life of about 50 years
Too late to pull out of Australia’s botched super-expensive submarines purchase?
‘Lost the plot’: How an obsession with local jobs blew out Australia’s $90 billion submarine program, By Anthony GallowaySEPTEMBER 14, 2021 Nick Minchin isn’t surprised Australia’s future submarines are arriving later than expected and $40 billion more expensive. He has seen it all before……..
I was staggered by that, no wonder we ran into financial difficulties with Defence’s estimates of maintaining and operating these things,” Minchin tells The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age…………
Now, history is repeating itself.
Australia’s 12 new attack-class submarines – Australia’s largest military acquisition in its history – were originally slated to cost between $40 billion and $50 billion. According to the latest projections they will now cost about $90 billion to build and $145 billion to maintain over their life cycle. Despite the fact former prime minister Tony Abbott promised the first of the submarines would be in the water by the mid-2020s, it is now not scheduled to become operational until the mid-2030s.
In the current debate on Australia’s submarine debacle, French-bashing has been all the rage. And with French builder Naval Group’s cost blowouts, schedule slippages and dubious commitments on meeting local content requirements – it’s been an easy sport. But it’s worth asking: would we have arrived at this point regardless of which bidder we chose? After all, Defence’s acquisition debacles are not confined to French-designed submarines…………….
And it’s not just submarines where there are inherent problems………..
………………. the Abbott government opted for a deeply flawed Competitive Evaluation Process which led to the current mess.”.
……….. On April 26, 2016, Turnbull announced France had won the hard-fought global race for the $50 billion contract and all the submarines would be built in Adelaide. According to Turnbull, the recommendation from Defence was “unequivocal” that the French proposal for a conventionally powered version of the latest French nuclear submarine design – the Shortfin Barracuda – was the best of the three options.
Is it too late to pull out?
Once Scott Morrison took over the prime ministership, the project was already going off course. By late 2019, Defence officials conceded that the cost of building and maintaining the submarines would total $225 billion over the life of the program, while concerns were mounting about Naval Group’s schedule slippages and its ability to meet its local content commitments, which were never written into the agreement.
…………. Morrison tasked Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead and Commodore Tim Brown to look at alternative options for the submarine fleet, including long-range conventionally powered submarines that Swedish company Saab Kockums had offered the Dutch navy. The government also rejected Naval Group’s proposal outlining the next two-year phase of the program, telling the company it needed more information on how its cost and schedule projections would be met.
After taking over the defence portfolio, Peter Dutton told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age he was having some “frank discussions” with his department. A month later, Dutton revealed he had ordered life-of-type extensions for all six Collins-class submarines, which involves completely rebuilding them so they can continue to operate beyond their planned retirement date of the mid-2020s. Dutton also tasked Defence to embrace more asymmetric warfare capabilities by acquiring long-range missiles and drones, which can be “produced in bulk, more quickly and cheaply, and where their loss would be more tolerable, without significantly impacting our force posture”.
After taking over the defence portfolio, Peter Dutton told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age he was having some “frank discussions” with his department. A month later, Dutton revealed he had ordered life-of-type extensions for all six Collins-class submarines, which involves completely rebuilding them so they can continue to operate beyond their planned retirement date of the mid-2020s. Dutton also tasked Defence to embrace more asymmetric warfare capabilities by acquiring long-range missiles and drones, which can be “produced in bulk, more quickly and cheaply, and where their loss would be more tolerable, without significantly impacting our force posture”.
Within the next week, the government is expected to announce it has reached a deal with Naval Group on the next two-and-half years of the submarine program.
By then, it almost certainly will be too late to pull out. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/lost-the-plot-how-an-obsession-with-local-jobs-blew-out-australia-s-90-billion-submarine-program-20210913-p58r34.html
News Corpse’s new snide approach on climate change – to help Morrison win next election?
“This may be more about giving Morrison cover going into an election year, by establishing the pathetically low bar of ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ as somehow constituting meaningful action, particularly given that he is being roundly criticised by the world community for his meager climate commitments going into COP26,” Mann said on Friday…….
“Focusing on a target of 2050, three decades away, kicks the can so far down the road that it’s largely meaningless.”….…
News Corp about-turn on emissions too little, too late, scientists say, The Age, By Nick O’Malley and Amelia McGuire, September 11, 2021 ”’……….. When The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age reported that News Corp papers were planning a climate push, it made news around the world……
One of the Journal’s own former editors tweeted of the paper’s climate coverage, “No group has been more clueless, duplicitous or irresponsible on climate change than the WSJ edit and op-ed crew.”
He attached a string of climate sceptic headlines from the past six weeks…….
It is hard to exaggerate how News Corp’s coverage of climate change – and of climate scientists themselves – have scarred the sector. In his recent book The New Climate Wars, leading climatologist Michael Mann wrote that the company’s amplification of a false conspiracy known as “climategate” helped derail the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, setting back global efforts to rein in warming by crucial years.
In Australia critics say the coverage has contributed to decades of policy inertia on the issue………..
In December 2020, Wendy Bacon and Arunn Jegan analysed all news, features, opinion pieces, letters and editorials discussing climate change that appeared in The Daily Telegraph, Herald-Sun, Courier Mail and The Australian between April 2019 and March 2020.
They found 45 per cent of all coverage either rejected or cast doubt on consensus scientific findings. Their research asserted that most News Corp reporters do not promote sceptical views, but of 55 per cent of stories that accepted climate science, misunderstandings about that science were almost always promoted rather than explained, and the reporting on the effects of climate change was negligible.
Half of the news and feature stories either had no source or one source.
Nearly two thirds of published opinion pieces were sceptical of climate science. The top five climate sceptics were Sky News presenters Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Peta Credlin, Peter Gleeson and Chris Kenny…….
According to Marian Wilkinson, whose recent book The Carbon Club is a forensic analysis of the interplay between the political, media and industry actors who have stalled action on climate in Australia for decades, News Corp’s coverage influenced other media in the country.
She believes even the ABC “pulled its punches” on climate coverage for fear it would look soft when compared with the Murdoch press’s hardline climate denialism.
Wilkinson is one of many who believe that Australian climate and energy policy has been rudderless for decades, but she does not blame News alone.
Rather she says the Murdoch empire helped derail climate action along with well-connected fossil fuel industry lobbyists and complicit politicians from both parties………
“This may be more about giving Morrison cover going into an election year, by establishing the pathetically low bar of ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ as somehow constituting meaningful action, particularly given that he is being roundly criticised by the world community for his meager climate commitments going into COP26,” Mann said on Friday…….
“Focusing on a target of 2050, three decades away, kicks the can so far down the road that it’s largely meaningless.”……. https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/news-corp-about-turn-on-emissions-too-little-too-late-scientists-say-20210910-p58qja.html
Sloppy and unconvincing pro nuclear propaganda from the Australian Nationals and the Murdochracy
The Australian nuclear promotion is less persuasive. Coming predominantly from Murdoch media, the content of nuclear propaganda is sloppy, inaccurate, and at times downright weird.
The Nationals and Murdoch media support nuclear power ahead of COP26, Independent Australia,By Noel Wauchope | 9 September 2021.
On 1 September 2021, Senator Matt Canavan called for Australia to boycott the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) to be held in Glasgow in November.
Was he speaking on behalf of the coal or oil industries? Well, not exactly.
This was the latest and strangest call from Australia’s noisy little band of pro-nuclear promoters. Canavan was responding to the news that the nuclear industry has been banned from having exhibits at COP26. He complained that the Climate Summit was a ”sham” for excluding nuclear power, a view supported by MP Ken O’Dowd.
O’Dowd said that nuclear power should be at the top of the climate agenda. Other National Party notables, David Littleproud and Bridget McKenzie, recently spoke out for nuclear power.
Like the nuclear industry worldwide, they are now taking up the cause of climate action with a vengeance. The nuclear lobby’s motives are clear. First, they likely want the tax exemptions and other subsidies that come with being declared as clean and sustainable. Secondly, they need that seal of approval, the public respectability which goes with acquiring the clean and green label.
The global lobby’s most persuasive argument is that a nuclear reactor’s operation generates a lot of electricity, with only a minuscule production of CO2.
They don’t, of course, talk about the processes of the nuclear fuel chain from uranium mining through to demolition of dead reactors and disposal of wastes. Their favourite phrase ”emissions-free energy” doesn’t count emissions of radioactive strontium-90.
The Australian nuclear promotion is less persuasive. Coming predominantly from Murdoch media, the content of nuclear propaganda is sloppy, inaccurate, and at times downright weird. The Australian newspaper provides two outstanding examples
The first is this eye-catching article ‘Savvy activists cast nuclear benefits in a fresh green light‘ subtitled:
‘For baby boomers, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were conflated as an existential risk. This created an irrational fear that persists today.’
From the outset, the argument is an attack on anti-nuclear activists, instead of arguing the case for nuclear power.
The hero of the piece is Zion Lights, formerly of Extinction Rebellion, who created her own pro-nuclear group, Emergency Reactor.
She works closely with Michael Shellenberger, who, himself, has lost the support of the general nuclear lobby, due to his many inaccurate statements. Zion Lights and The Australian go into a lengthy digression on the foibles of the baby boomers, who have ‘conflated nuclear weapons and nuclear energy as an existential risk that could wipe out humanity’.
The health effects of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are minimised and renewable energy is rubbished as being ineffective.
The author, Claire Lehmann, concludes that the too-slow movement towards carbon neutrality is the fault of the misguided anti-nuclear baby boomers.
The second article is ‘Nuclear stacks up — cue the meltdown‘ by Greg Sheridan, who starts by accusing Australians as being ‘environmental outliers’ for prohibiting nuclear power…………..
the main thrust of this pro-nuclear argument moves on to an attack on Labor, the Greens and so forth:
‘… the deadly, wretched, wholly negative, nihilistic scare campaigns and demonising that the ALP left and its Green allies have conducted against nuclear energy.’
There is no attempt to address any of the worrying issues that surround nuclear power — costs, safety, environmental damage, radioactive waste. He reminds us that Bill Gates backs nuclear power. Well of course Gates does — he owns a nuclear power company, Terra Power.
He also quotes the European Union (EU) as backing nuclear power. While several EU countries do have nuclear power, the EU as a whole is not recommending nuclear powers as a climate solution. In fact, the nuclear industry is banned from exhibiting at the green zone at COP26………
As I write this comes the breathtaking news that the Murdoch media is changing its attitude to global warming. From a rather crude sort of climate denialism, they will likely move to supporting technical “climate fixes” spruiked by the fossil fuel industries. This is a more subtle way of sabotaging real climate action.
Perhaps we can expect them also to provide something more credible on the nuclear issue in the future. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-nationals-and-murdoch-media-support-nuclear-power-ahead-of-cop26,15496
1 This month.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 