Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Nuclear Shaping Up To Be The Big Issue Next Election

 https://10play.com.au/theproject/articles/nuclear-shaping-up-to-be-the-big-issue-next-election/tpa240602vcgxm 2 June 24 We’ve just passed the two-year anniversary of Anthony Albanese being elected as the Prime Minister of Australia, and now rumours are swirling around when the PM will call the next election.

And there’s one issue that shapes up to be a cornerstone election issue when we go to the polls. 

The battle lines have been drawn and nuclear power plants are at the centre of them.

The Prime Minister has set the agenda for the remainder of his term, saying the government will campaign on the issue until the day Australia heads to the polls.

It’s been almost two years since the opposition leader first flagged his nuclear policy proposal, but the devil is in the details, and that’s precisely what the PM says is missing.

It comes as rumours swirl around whether Anthony Albanese will call an early election when he still has more than a year left to do so.

And while the PM has repeatedly said he intends to serve a full term… There are a few reasons he may decide not to.

The impact of foreign forces could also play a role in his decision.

So will Albo stick to his guns and hold out until next year, and will the next campaign go totally nuclear. 

June 3, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

“We haven’t been consulted:” Coal town on transition to renewables is not interested in nuclear

ReNewEconomy, Aaron Bunch, Jun 2, 2024

A Western Australian coal town lined up as a potential site for a nuclear power station by the federal Coalition says the plan is a distraction as it works to ditch fossil fuels and transition to renewables and storage.

The federal coalition has floated plans to add nuclear energy to the power grid should it win government by building reactors at sites currently home to either coal or gas-fired power stations.

The sites have not yet been announced but the list is widely reported to include Collie, 200km south of Perth and home to about 7500 people, where a state government-supported pivot away from the coal industry is underway. It is the site for two of the country’s biggest battery storage projects.

Shire President Ian Miffling said the state $662 million Just Transition plan had created a “buzz” in the town and the federal coalition’s nuclear power plan hadn’t received much attention.

“Collie hasn’t been consulted at all and we don’t know any of the details of the policy and what they propose, so we’ve not given it too much credence at this stage,” he told AAP…………………

Mr Miffling said locals were focused on bolstering their skills for jobs in new industries, like the recently approved green steel mill and Synergy’s $1.6 billion battery to store renewable energy once coal is retired as an energy supply in 2030.

“The potential for nuclear, which would be a long way down the track, is a bit of a distraction and it really doesn’t need us to spend too much time talking about it at this point,” he said………………..

Local state Labor MP Jodie Hanns said federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and the coalition were out of touch with what was happening on the ground in Collie and floating plans for a reactor in the town was “arrogant and disrespectful”……………………….

“No one I’ve spoken to is in support of a nuclear reactor being put in Collie … my house will be up for sale if this becomes a reality.”

AMWU state secretary Steve McCartney said Collie workers had been discussing for years what they wanted for the town after coal mining ended, “and I can guarantee you one of the things wasn’t a nuclear power station”…………… https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-havent-been-consulted-coal-town-on-transition-to-renewables-is-not-interested-in-nuclear

June 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, Western Australia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Summary of Australian federal and state/territory nuclear/uranium laws and prohibitions.

Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick guide

From Jim Green, 30 May 2024

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2324/Quick_Guides/NuclearActivitiesProhibitions
PDF Version [564KB]
Dr Emily Gibson
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources; Law and Bills Digest Sections
This quick guide provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under Commonwealth, state and territory laws. It considers the primary legislation most relevant to current policy debates about domestic nuclear energy only and consequently does not consider recent changes to Commonwealth law to facilitate Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.[1] It also does not include consideration of Australia’s international obligations in respect of nuclear activities, including the safeguarding of nuclear materials and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.


If a domestic nuclear energy industry were to progress, it is expected that a comprehensive framework for the safety, security and safeguarding of the related nuclear material would need to be legislated to accommodate such an industry.[2] Consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.

What are nuclear activities?

A nuclear activity is any process or step in the utilisation of material capable of undergoing nuclear fission; that is, any activities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[3] Nuclear activities therefore include:

  • mining of nuclear or radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium milling, refining, treatment, processing, reprocessing, fabrication or enrichment of nuclear material  
  • the production of nuclear energy 
  • the construction, operation or decommissioning of a mine, plant, facility, structure, apparatus or equipment used in the above activities
  • the use, storage, handling, transportation, possession, acquisition, abandonment or disposal of nuclear materials, apparatus or equipment.

Prohibitions on nuclear activities

Commonwealth

Nuclear activities are regulated under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998

The ARPANS Act establishes a licensing framework for controlled persons (including a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth contractor) in relation to controlled facilities (a nuclear installation, a prescribed radiation facility, or a prescribed legacy site).[4] A nuclear installation includes a nuclear reactor for research or the production of radioactive materials for industrial or medical use, and a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018.[5]

The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency   (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7]

However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act establishes 9 matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and provides for the assessment and approval of these actions if the action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the MNES.[9] ‘Nuclear actions’ are one of the MNES.[10] Where a nuclear action is determined to be a controlled action (that is, one likely to have a significant impact and requiring assessment and approval under the Act), the assessment considers the impact of a nuclear action on the environment generally (including people and communities).[11]

The Act establishes offences for the taking of nuclear actions in those circumstances.[14]

Similarly, the Act provides that a relevant entity (as set out below) must not take an action (including a nuclear action) unless a requisite approval has been obtained under Part 9 of the Act or a relevant exception applies:

  • a person must not take a relevant action on Commonwealth land that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment[15]   
  •  a person must not take a relevant action outside Commonwealth land if the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land[16]  
  • the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not take inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction.[17]

The Act establishes offences and civil penalty provisions for the taking of an action in those circumstances.[18]

Subsection 140A(1) prohibits the Minister for the Environment from granting an approval for a nuclear action relating to specified nuclear installations. These installations are a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant, and a reprocessing facility.

Potential reform of the nuclear action trigger

The second independent review of the EPBC Act, completed in October 2020 by Professor Graeme Samuel (Samuel Review), recommended that the nuclear actions MNES be retained.[19] The review recommended that ‘the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements of [ARPANSA] should be aligned, to support the implementation of best-practice international approaches based on risk of harm to the environment, including the community’.[20]

In 2022, the Government’s Nature Positive Plan adopted this approach and stated, ‘[a] uniform national approach to regulation of radiation will be delivered through the new National Environmental Standards’.

In February 2024, a policy draft of the National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance indicates that ‘nuclear actions’ will be renamed ‘radiological exposure actions’ and states:

Relevant decisions must:

   Not be inconsistent with the ARPANSA national codesfor protection from radiological exposure actions including in relation to:   

  1.  human health and environmental risks and outcomes; and. radiological impacts on biological diversity, 
  2. the conservation of species and the natural health of ecosystems.[22]

States and territories

States and territories generally regulate nuclear and radiation activities through either the health or the environmental protection portfolios. The relevant legislation provides for the protection of health and safety of people, and the protection of property and the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation by establishing licensing regimes to regulate the possession, use, and transportation of radiation sources and substances.[23] Mining of radioactive materials is regulated through the resources portfolio.

In addition, as outlined below, the states and territories have legislation prohibiting certain nuclear activities or the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities. Importantly, where permitted, nuclear activities (including mining) would also be subject to assessment and approvals under a range of other legislation, including planning and environmental impact assessment, native title and cultural heritage, and radiation licensing laws at the state or territory and Commonwealth level.

New South Wales

Exploration for uranium has been permitted under the Mining Act 1992 since 2012.[24] However, the mining of uranium is prohibited by the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 (NSW Prohibitions Act).[25]

The NSW Prohibitions Act also prohibits the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment facilities, fabrication and reprocessing plants, nuclear power plants, and storage and waste disposal facilities (other than for the storage and disposal of waste from research or medical purposes, or the relevant radiological licensing Act).[26]

Northern Territory

The Atomic Energy Act 1953 (Cth) provides that the Commonwealth owns all uranium found in the territories.[27] Uranium exploration and mining in the Northern Territory (NT) is regulated under both NT mining laws (the Mineral Titles Act 2010 and the Mining Management Act 2001) and the Atomic Energy Act.[28] The Ranger Uranium Mine operated until 2021 and is now undergoing rehabilitation.[29]

The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT.[30] Nuclear waste is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.[31]

This Act also:

  •  prohibits public funds from being expended, granted or advanced to any person for, or for encouraging or financing any activity associated with the development, construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility  
  •  would require the NT Parliament to hold an inquiry into the likely impact of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed by the Commonwealth on the cultural, environmental and socio‑economic wellbeing of the territory.[32]

Queensland

Exploration for and mining of uranium are permitted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. However, it has been government policy to not grant mining leases for uranium since 2015.[33] The government policy ban extends to the treatment or processing of uranium within the state.[34]

The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007, in similar terms to the NSW Prohibitions Act, prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[35]

Unlike other state and territory prohibition legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act would require the responsible Queensland Minister to hold a plebiscite to gain the views of the Queensland population if the Minister was satisfied that the Commonwealth Government has taken, or is likely to take, steps to amend a Commonwealth law or exercise a power under a Commonwealth law to facilitate the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility, or if the Commonwealth Government adopts a policy position of supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.[36]

South Australia

The exploration and mining of radioactive material (including uranium) is permitted in South Australia (SA), subject to approvals under the Mining Act 1971 and the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 (RP&C Act).[37] For example, uranium is mined at Olympic Dam, Four Mile and Honeymoon. However, conversion and enrichment activities are prohibited by the RP&C Act.[38]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 prohibits the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility.[39]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facilities.[40] The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised under a Commonwealth law.[41]

Tasmania

The exploration and mining of atomic substances (which includes uranium and thorium) is permitted under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (Tas), subject to approval.

Victoria

The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits a range of activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including the exploration and mining of uranium and thorium, and the construction or operation of facilities for the conversion or enrichment of any nuclear material, nuclear reactors and facilities for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from those prohibited activities.[42]

Western Australia

Exploration for and mining of uranium is permitted under the Mining Act 1978. A state policy ban on mining approvals was overturned in November 2008;[43] however, this was reinstated in June 2017, with a ‘no uranium’ condition on future mining leases.[44] The ban does not apply to 4 projects that had already been approved by the previous government.

The Nuclear Activities Regulation Act 1978 aims to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from possible harmful effects of nuclear activities, including by regulating the mining and processing of uranium and the equipment used in those processes. The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 also prohibits the storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste (including waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons).[45]

Can the Commonwealth override a state ban on nuclear activities?

The Commonwealth Parliament only has the power to make laws in relation to matters specified in the Constitution of Australia, including in sections 51, 52 and 122. Assuming the Commonwealth has a sufficient head of power to legislate, section 109 of the Constitution specifically provides for circumstances in which there might be an inconsistency between Commonwealth and state laws:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Therefore, even though some states have enacted prohibitions on certain nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, the Commonwealth Parliament could enact specific legislation in relation to nuclear activities so that such activities can take place within those jurisdictions. One such example is the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth), which provides for the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility at a site to be declared by the responsible Commonwealth Minister. Section 12 of that Act provides that state and territory laws have no effect in regulating, hindering, or preventing such a facility

Further information

June 2, 2024 Posted by | ACT, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, reference, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear plan a ‘distraction’ as coal town transitions

Canberra Times, By Aaron Bunch,  June 1 2024

 A Western Australian coal town lined up as a potential site for a nuclear power station says the plan is a distraction as it works to ditch fossil fuels.

The federal coalition has floated plans to add nuclear energy to the power grid should it win government by building reactors at sites currently home to either coal or gas-fired power stations.

The sites have not yet been announced but the list is believed to include Collie, 200km south of Perth and home to about 7500 people, where a state government-supported pivot away from the coal industry is underway.

Shire President Ian Miffling said the $662 million Just Transition plan had created a “buzz” in the town and the federal coalition’s nuclear power plan hadn’t received much attention.

“Collie hasn’t been consulted at all and we don’t know any of the details of the policy and what they propose, so we’ve not given it too much credence at this stage,” he told AAP.

“(But) you don’t have to be Einstein to know that Collie would have to be on the radar, considering that we’ve got coal-fired power stations with the hub of the transmission network and it’s probably where all the all the connections would be made.”

Mr Miffling said locals were focused on bolstering their skills for jobs in new industries, like the recently approved green steel mill and Synergy’s $1.6 billion battery to store renewable energy once coal is retired as an energy supply in 2030.

“The potential for nuclear, which would be a long way down the track, is a bit of a distraction and it really doesn’t need us to spend too much time talking about it at this point,” he said…………………………………………………

Local state Labor MP Jodie Hanns said federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and the coalition were out of touch with what was happening on the ground in Collie and floating plans for a reactor in the town was “arrogant and disrespectful”.

“The federal Liberals are not interested in a conversation about Collie, their only interest is in the politics,” she said.

“And the losers in this (are) my community and the people that live and work here.”

She said the transition, which started in 2018, had created certainty for the community as it forged its future after more than 100 years of coal mining.

“My husband works at the power station and he is a transitioning worker. What’s happening in conversations around my dining table at home is happening in in other households around Collie,” she said.

“No one I’ve spoken to is in support of a nuclear reactor being put in Collie … my house will be up for sale if this becomes a reality.”

AMWU state secretary Steve McCartney said Collie workers had been discussing for years what they wanted for the town after coal mining ended, “and I can guarantee you one of the things wasn’t a nuclear power station”……………………………..

WA Liberals energy spokesman Steve Thomas on Sunday said Mr Dutton’s plan wouldn’t work in the west because the state’s power system was too small to accommodate a large, cost-effective nuclear power plant……………….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8648571/nuclear-plan-a-distraction-as-coal-town-transitions/

June 2, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scott Morrison on the revolving door- government nuclear AUKUS deal, to Dyne, company advising on AUKUS

As a strategic advisor to DYNE, Morrison hopes to advance investment in dual-use technologies — inventions that have military and civilian applications. That innovation is being helped by the second pillar of AUKUS, the one that has to do with tearing down military-industrial trade barriers between the US, UK and Australia. 

Facing post-Parliament poverty, multitasking Morrison looks to seafloor for riches

What to do when your taxpayer-funded salary drops from $549k, to $225k, to nothing? Multitask, of course.

Crikey, ANTON NILSSON, MAY 30, 2024

Scott Morrison has yet another new job — and like some of his other post-Parliament gigs, it’s tangentially linked to the AUKUS submarine pact he helped set up as prime minister. 

The Age reports Morrison is listed as a strategic advisor at a newly created venture called the Seafloor Minerals Fund, alongside ex-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo. Both men are also behind venture capital firm DYNE, set up to support the strategic goals of AUKUS, and which also has interests in deep sea mining, according to the story. 

Crikey figured it was time to have another look at Morrison’s post-politics career. 

In need of cash …………………………………………..

Multitasking 

So what has Morrison done to set himself up for success? His LinkedIn lists three jobs: author, non-executive vice chairman of American Global Strategies, and board member at “various companies”. The voters who brought you Scott Morrison want stronger anti-corruption protectionsRead More

As an author, he’s already published his first work: the religious memoir Plans For Your Good. The book was aimed at the $1.175 billion US Christian book market, but in Australia, it’s reportedly sold very few copies so far. 

At American Global Strategies, Morrison is working with two former Donald Trump staffers to “help clients navigate a highly dynamic geopolitical landscape that presents risks and opportunities”, in the ex-PM’s own words. 

As a strategic advisor to DYNE, Morrison hopes to advance investment in dual-use technologies — inventions that have military and civilian applications. That innovation is being helped by the second pillar of AUKUS, the one that has to do with tearing down military-industrial trade barriers between the US, UK and Australia. The new gig, with the Seafloor Minerals Fund, will set Morrison and Pompeo up for taking advantage of the estimated trillions of dollars in rare metals estimated to be on the seafloor. According to The Age, Australians can expect a fierce future debate about the merits and risks of mining the seabed for minerals, as China seeks to do the same.  https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/30/scott-morrison-seafloor-minerals-fund/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1717042244

June 2, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

TODAY. Turning Point .The bomb and the cold war. Episode 4: The Wall – outlines the nuclear weapons race.

Introduction: 2019, with Donald Trump in power Mike Pompeo, Secretary of announces that USA is ls leaving the Arms Control Treaty – the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. Only the New Start Treaty remains, due to expire soon . USA-Russia relations at a low point because of Ukraine, Russia withdraws from nuclear communications. Now other nations also have nuclear weapons, increasing the danger of confrontation, not co-operation, and of nuclear war.

************************

The Soviets were always insecure about American power. Americans also afraid of Soviet might. So Kruschev exaggerated Soviet nuclear weapons, to impress Americans. So USA in 1956 devised U2 spy plane. 1957 – Soviets develop Sputnik satellite- a space win, increasing USA’s fear. CIA satellite spying showed Soviet nuclear weapons much fewer. Daniel Ellsberg (Rand Corporation analyst 1959- 64) shows that Soviets were not trying for a first strike capability, not trying to dominate the world militarily. That discovery should have led to a change in USA thinking.

But it didn’t. USA propaganda continued, with the fraudulent belief that Russia ‘s foreign policy was world domination

Why has this totally fraudulent belief persisted all this time? Because there are jobs in it, and it’s very profitable. So many companies – Boeing, Lockheed, IBM, Martin and more become reliant on the government and the defense industry, becoming “a nuclear-headed hydra”. It changed universities, with 75% of natural science funding coming from defense industries. Society becomes oriented around defense, security and nuclear weapons. Exponential increase in the number and diversity of weapons, with an unlimited budget. (Good visuals of many types of nuclear weapons) By 1961 23000 nuclear weapons, most of them thermonuclear- a thousand times more powerful than the one dropped on Nagasaki. Eisenhower finally realised what a threat that this permanent armaments industry was to democracy – and warned against the “military-industrial-complex”. So many congressmen were reliant on the armaments jobs in their district. Armaments were seen as good business by Republicans and Democrats.

Presidents Richard Nixon and then John Kennedy push for the weapons industry aiming to race the Soviets, beat the so-called “missile gap”. Confrontation increasing, between Kruschev and Kennedy, (told by Kruschev’s great-granddaughter). Focus on Berlin, – graphic coverage of the Wall going up, the guards, the repression, the “death strips” .

Meanwhile American missiles set up in Europe, aimed at Russia., in Turkey aimed at the Kremlin. So Soviets tried to set up a threat to USA in Cuba’s communist regime. A CIA-led insurgency there had failed, (told by veterans) .

Pressure on Kennedy to invade Cuba, but he was reluctant. Castro urged Kruschev to attack USA, but Kruschev was reluctant. Tortuous secret diplomacy. Privately both Kennedy and Kruschev wanted no nuclear war. But they were not really in control, and they publicly threatened with nuclear weapons. This crisis led to the PARTIAL NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY putting nuclear testing underground.

1963: Kennedy assassinated, 1964 – Kruschev deposed. Brezhnev took over, aiming to be ahead in nuclear missiles. Both USA and Soviet union raced for nuclear missile superiority, but aiming to never use these weapons – use would be a mutual suicide pact. They developed the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Use of thousands of these weapons within 30 minutes – would kill of the entire earth, cut out sunlight and plant growth, and coat the earth with radioactive fallout.

So – the battles between the Soviets and the USA were proxy battles in other countries, intervening in other countries ‘ civil wars – Nicaragua, Angola, North Yemen, Domenica, Bangladesh, East Timor, Mozambique. Congo, (brutish visuals) . In Vietnam China and Russia supported the North Vietnamese, while many Asian allies supported USA. USA used Latin American countries to mobilise the Cold War. In Chile USA orchestrated the overthrow of President Allende, and the takeover by fascist Augusto Pinochet. U.S. intervention left a chaotic rule in Guatemala , an authoritarian rule in Iran. Far from spreading democracy, USA “got into bed with anyone who called themselves anti-communist“.

1969 President Richard Nixon- publicly blustered about the evils of Soviet communism, but in reality, talked with the Soviets about negotiation, introducing “detente”. The Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT 1) 1n 1972, the first agreement to limit intercontinental ballistic missiles. The U.S. Anti Ballistic Missile System. But the number of warheads was increasing in both USA and Russia – to a total of 70.000 nuclear weapons. A movement in USA to not trust the Soviets will culminate in the 19080s with President Ronal Reagan. Still, Reagan’s hatred of nuclear weapons brought him and Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev together.

June 1, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Do young people support nuclear power?

Jim Green 31 May 24

Earlier this year the Murdoch-Coalition echo-chamber was excited about younger poll respondents in a February Newspoll survey ‒ 65 percent support and 32 percent opposition among 18 to 34-year-olds to this survey question: ‘There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?’

However the Newspoll survey was a crude example of push-polling as discussed by polling experts Kevin Bonham and Murray Goot and by economist Professor John Quiggin. The question was loaded, the response options were mischievous (excluding a “neither approve nor disapprove” option, without which majority support (across all age groups) almost certainly would not have been achieved), and the Murdoch/Sky reporting on the poll was biased and dishonest.

Moreover, as Murray Goot notes, other polls reach different conclusions:

“But eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds as the age group most favourably disposed to nuclear power is not what Essential shows, not what Savanta shows, and not what RedBridge shows.

“In October’s Essential poll, no more than 46 per cent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-four supported “nuclear power plants” — the same proportion as those aged thirty-six to fifty-four but a smaller proportion than those aged fifty-five-plus (56 per cent); the proportion of “strong” supporters was actually lower among those aged eighteen to thirty-four than in either of the other age-groups.

“In the Savanta survey, those aged eighteen to thirty-four were the least likely to favour nuclear energy; only about 36 per cent were in favour, strongly or otherwise, not much more than half the number that Newspoll reported.

“And according to a report of the polling conducted in February by RedBridge, sourced to Tony Barry, a partner and former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, “[w]here there is support” for nuclear power “it is among only those who already vote Liberal or who are older than 65”.”

June 1, 2024 Posted by | politics | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Truly the stuff of nightmares”: unprecedented low in Antarctic sea ice recorded

By Jeremy Smith, May 31, 2024,  https://johnmenadue.com/truly-the-stuff-of-nightmares-unprecedented-low-in-antarctic-sea-ice-recorded/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0LBw8Xpve2S05Os1FH_y7RYvvv8tqj0qhXrhsM-Z3e49hH1Uu2E44lQr4_aem_AbLMAUeHwooBl6H86wLEqHTtPllDKldX5fzB5e2_5LYTTkXQuf4y_brUHNORL5PsxpdKGuD227S1VVLTWCOjJj7N

Each winter the surface of the sea freezes around Antarctica, over a vast area, mostly to a depth of about one metre. But this is starting to change. Last year, the sea ice reached an unprecedentedly low maximum extent of only 17 million square kilometres.

Why aren’t we talking about sea ice? Perhaps it’s because most people haven’t even heard of it, which is a shame because it’s important.

Each winter the surface of the sea freezes around Antarctica, over a vast area, mostly to a depth of about one metre. The continent effectively doubles in size, with 18-20 million square kilometres being covered by floating ice. That’s an area 2.5 times that of Australia; 4% of Earth’s surface.

But this is starting to change. Last year, the sea ice reached an unprecedentedly low maximum extent of only 17 million square kilometres. Although this year looks like being a little less extreme, a clear and concerning trend appears to be under way. This is emphasised in the ice minimum values in late summer. By February each year the sea ice extent shrinks typically to about three million square kilometres (mostly in two large embayments, the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea), but through most of the present decade it has dwindled to below two million.

Why does this matter? Well for a start, it is the underside of this huge area of sea ice where algae live and multiply, which feed the shrimp-like krill that in turn sustains an entire ecosystem: fish, seals, penguins, whales, the lot. The upper surface of sea ice is also crucially important. Its albedo, or reflectivity, means that 80-90% of the incoming summer sunshine is bounced back into space. Replace the ice with dark ocean and only about 9% is reflected, the rest going to warm the water. So the loss of sea ice is not only a symptom of climate change, it also contributes to it, in a feedback loop that might accelerate.

There’s more. When sea water freezes, the developing ice crystals comprise nearly pure water. Most of the salt is extruded as a heavy brine, and this cold, dense water sinks, becoming the Antarctic Bottom Current. This circulates around the Southern Ocean before spinning off into the other major ocean basins. As this deep cold flow moves north it displaces warmer water which then up-wells and forms the main surface currents. Without the annual ‘push’ of the Antarctic Bottom Current, these warmer currents might slow and cease.

The global ocean is so vast that it changes very slowly. We are only now beginning to see the results of the ocean’s absorbance of a century of industrial environmental heating, in the form of anomalously warm seas particularly this year. Any pronounced weakening of the ocean circulation due to sea ice loss will be slow – but inexorable.

The results, which are probably not going to happen in our own lifetimes but could well become part of our legacy to future generations, are likely to be dire. It could eventually mean goodbye to the Gulf Stream and the other currents which maintain benign climates on the European Atlantic coast, around Japan, and elsewhere in the northern hemisphere.

The possible consequences of such climate change for human societies are truly the stuff of nightmares. 

June 1, 2024 Posted by | climate change - global warming | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. Jobs jobs jobs in the nuclear industry – but is it true?

Go to Google news for nuclear information, and you’ll be swamped with glowing stories from the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA, and the big corporate media outlets – all about the wonderful future for the nuclear industry- –

all those jobs! including in the lovely nuclear weapons industry.

Jobs in renewable energy. This year’s report finds that renewable energy employment worldwide has continued to expand – to an estimated 13.7 million direct and indirect jobs in 2022. We can expect the creation of many millions of additional jobs in the coming years and decades.  https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_energy_and_jobs_2023.pdf?rev=4f65518fb5f64c9fb78f6f60fe821bf2

Jobs in nuclear power. I have not been able to find any kind of authoritative report on global jobs in nuclear power. I did find one source (on Quora) stating that each nuclear reactor in construction provides 1400-1800 jobs, and in operation 400 -700 jobs. The nuclear industry claims many more, but for construction, we must remember – this is all in the rather distant future.

The figure below is a prediction from many years ago. If we are to believe the nuclear lobby, this prediction should change rapidly.

What we do know is that at present, renewable energy jobs are increasing exponentially, and nuclear power building is almost at a standstill.

The figure on the left is also from many years ago. But I doubt that much has changed.

Of course – this is all about the actual reactors. There are many jobs in uranium mining, milling, transport etc, and of course, in nuclear weapons-making

The quality of jobs.

In energy efficiency there are many interesting and clean jobs. Also, workers know that they are contributing to a healthier planet – something to be proud of.

In renewable energy the jobs are relatively clean and healthy, and there’s again, the knowledge of being in an alternative to the polluting industries – coal and nuclear.

In nuclear energy and nuclear fuel, the workers are involved in the risky area of ionising radiation. There’s a huge amount of documentation on this. It is NOT a healthy job, though I suppose that it’s better to be a highly paid nuclear executive or lobbyist, safe in a nice office.

I doubt that nuclear workers can get much satisfaction about “helping the planet”, as the “peaceful” nuclear industry is so dirty, dangerous, and intimately connected with nuclear weapons.

No doubt some nuclear workers get paid a lot more that renewable energy workers do. But, there’s real value in knowing that your contribution to society is a clean and positive one.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inside the nuclear influence machine

Documents unearthed by The Fifth Estate lay bare how funding for the strategy, now in motion, is coordinated by a coal mining leader from Queensland, working with possibly Australia’s most  influential conservative think tank, and also a key member of Australia’s unofficial nuclear club.

Is the push for nuclear power in Australia more stalking horse for coal than a genuine alternative for a clean energy future? Here’s how the nuclear cabal is working its pitch

THE FIFTH ESTATE, MURRAY HOGARTH, 29 May 24

There’s a sophisticated, well funded strategy underway to prolong coal and gas and eventually take Australia down the nuclear road.

Documents unearthed by The Fifth Estate lay bare how funding for the strategy, now in motion, is coordinated by a coal mining leader from Queensland, working with possibly Australia’s most  influential conservative think tank, and also a key member of Australia’s unofficial nuclear club.

For this to work, the Liberal-National coalition needs to win back political power at the next federal election due by May next year.

  • A key conservative think tank aims to keep coal until nuclear power arrives 
  • Its energy security argument is echoed by Peter Dutton as coalition policy
  • A Queensland coal baron mustered donors to fund this influence machine

As things stand, nuclear power is currently prohibited in Australia, and the Labor government is committed to fast-tracking a renewables-led energy transition and says it has no plans to lift the ban.

Canberra retreat

The documents we’ve obtained and refer to in this article are the script and slides from a revealing energy security project update to a private strategy retreat held in Canberra last year on 12 May 2023 by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Behind the current campaign to bring nuclear energy to Australia is a deliberate agenda to prolong coal generation and disrupt the renewables rollout

The Fifth Estate contacted the speaker and two other key IPA-connected figures identified in this story for comment on Monday 27 May, inviting on-the-record interviews and providing questions. On Tuesday evening 28 May, the IPA chief executive officer Scott Hargreaves responded by email but declined to be interviewed. Full details of that response and related information are included at the end of this article.

The Melbourne based IPA is known as Australia’s leading conservative think tank, a key influencer of Coalition policies, and breeding ground for conservative politicians.

It habitually loads speaking point bullets for coalition politicians to fire. And it looked like Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did just that when he delivered his headland nuclear policy speech at an IPA public event, just two months after the Canberra retreat on 7 July last year.

In 2023, the IPA threw an arm around one of the favourite sons of the nuclear club, University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson, making him a Visiting Fellow, as part of a big new donor-funded influence project, running over three years.

A key and recurring focus of this project and subsequent related policy talking points is energy security.

The internal IPA documents, authored by Wilson, lay out what many people suspect and have alleged: that behind the current campaign to bring nuclear energy to Australia is a deliberate agenda to prolong coal generation and disrupt the renewables rollout.

The final commentary and slide in Wilson’s presentation show an IPA-orchestrated master plan for Australia to defend and preserve coal and gas in the 2020s; then build “mini and small modular reactor (SMR)” nuclear plants in the 2030s under the mantle of reaping energy security, environmental and low-cost rewards in the 2040s.

It’s a parallel universe to the view a vast number of people have of Australia’s energy future. And it’s totally at odds with the clean energy transition agenda and the federal government’s targets of  43 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reductions below 2005 levels and 82 per cent renewables by 2030.

Threat to climate targets

It’s also likely to breach Australia’s staged progress, with five yearly sub targets (for example 43 per cent by 2030, with 2035 targets due to be announced early next year, with a range of 65-75 per cent being evaluated by the Climate Change Authority), towards its bipartisan commitment to 100 per cent net zero by 2050, which was made by the former Morrison coalition government ahead of the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow in the UK in 2021.

The IPA, however, is no fan of UN processes, and as Wilson made clear in his project update notes for the IPA insiders, the aim of its strategy was definitely not to prolong a Labor government……………………………..

The coal connection

Wilson also identified in the presentation who was pulling together the funding for his IPA project, with a bit of ideological explanation to set the scene:…………………………………………………………………….

Bring on Peter Dutton

The private IPA retreat in Canberra on 12 May last year was followed less than two months later by Dutton’s major speech to launch the coalition’s new energy security themed nuclear policy. This was delivered at a public IPA event in Sydney on 7 July.

Dutton’s speech mirrors the theme

Dutton’s headland nuclear speech substantially mirrored the energy security theme and language from the IPA retreat. And it also picked up on themes from earlier “nuclear club”events and activities, a number of them involving Stephen Wilson. If Australia’s nuclear club has anyone it would like to make its intellectual rock star, it’s Wilson. 

Dutton’s IPA speech directly referenced Wilson, most significantly:

Professor Wilson says that we must stop procrastinating and prepare real options to deploy nuclear energy in case we need them. Countries are queuing up to put in their orders. Australia could have SMRs [small modular reactors] installed within a decade.

Wilson also confirmed his presentation to the IPA retreat in the video of another IPA event earlier this year, its 2024 Generation Liberty IPA Academy aimed at young conservatives, and relayed how Dutton had quoted him on a couple of occasions, expressing some surprise, saying, “I didn’t know he was going to do that.” (Dutton’s 7 July speech also quoted three other nuclear club regulars, as well as Wilson.)

Since then, SMRs have been a disappointment. Very inconveniently for Dutton and Wilson, the US showcase for new and thus far commercially-unproven SMR-design nuclear power stations, the NuScale project in Idaho, was cancelled in November last year due to cost overruns and lack of electricity buyer interest.

NuScale’s chief executive officer was reported as saying: “Once you’re on a dead horse, you dismount quickly. That’s where we are here.”

On message for energy security

However insecure the NuScale experience sounds, it’s worth remembering that the core theme of Wilson’s earlier 12 May IPA presentation, based on the notes and slides, was energy security. That was also a central theme of Dutton’s 7 July IPA speech:………………………………………………………………

The future of the nation and Western civilisation as we know it

On a geo-political note, national security was weighing heavily on Wilson’s mind on 12 May, as it did for Dutton on 7 July. According to Wilson’s speaking notes, at stake was nothing less than the future of the nation and Western civilisation as we know it:…………………………………………………………………..

Nuclear club bona fides

To be clear, this is the same Stephen Wilson who joined Queensland Liberal MP Ted O’Brien, Dutton’s Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and other nuclear club players, on a so-called “due diligence” study tour to the US and Canada in January-February 2023.

As Wilson’s slide deck for the IPA Canberra Retreat showed, the study tour group visited major nuclear industry companies, government representatives, lobbyists and campaign organisations. (Ted and friends’ excellent nuclear adventure in North America will feature in other upcoming articles in The Nuclear Files.)

By his own account, judging by a number of publicly available videos, Wilson imbibed deeply in the North American nuclear sector Kool-Aid, riffing off a theme he picked up on the US study tour, to proclaim that: energy security IS national security.

That became the inspiration for a key paper he published with the IPA on 1 November 2023, titled Energy security is national security. Its 1 November 2023 launch, in London on the perimeters of a global gathering of about 1500 ultra-conservatives, is another story coming soon from The Nuclear Files.

The Fifth Estate’s questions to key players in this story

The Fifth Estate provided these questions to IPA CEO Scott Hargreaves early on Monday afternoon:………………………………………………………………………………

The nuclear story, then and now, in brief

Nuclear power has been considered for Australia numerous times over the past nearly 70 years, from the 1950s, but has never happened, mainly for economic reasons. Historically because of the low cost and wide availability of coal, and now it is the low cost of renewables. This month the 2024 CSIRO GenCost report found that traditionally designed large scale nuclear power stations would cost at least 50 per cent more than solar and wind backed by batteries, and take at least 15+ years to develop, and more technically-advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could be four to six  times more expensive than renewables.

On ABC Radio Sydney on Wednesday morning, 29 May, Opposition nuclear frontman Ted O’Brien was pressed on the timing for release of the coalition’s highly anticipated nuclear policy, and insisted it would be revealed “in due course”. He confirmed that the coalition wanted to replace coal-fired power stations, as they exit the electricity grid, with nuclear ones, and that gas generation would fill any gap (which could be one to two decades) between coal shutting down and nuclear starting up.  https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/columns-columns/the-nuclear-files/inside-the-nuclear-influence-machine/

May 30, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

CSIRO stands by nuclear power costings that contradict Coalition claims

The Coalition has attacked the GenCost report that found nuclear power plants would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind

Graham Readfearn, 29 May 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/29/csiro-nuclear-power-plant-australia-cost-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition

The CSIRO says it stands by its analysis on the costs of future nuclear power plants in Australia after the Coalition attacked the work, which contradicted its claims reactors would provide cheap electricity and be available within a decade.

The opposition’s energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, claimed on Tuesday in the Australian newspaper that the CSIRO should re-run its modelling to account for longer life-spans and running times of nuclear generators in other countries with nuclear programs.

Last week the CSIRO released its GenCost report on the costs of different generation technologies, saying nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind and would not be available any sooner than 2040.

The Coalition has yet to reveal any detail on its nuclear plan, including what type of reactors it would build, how large they would be and where they would put them.

A CSIRO spokesperson told Guardian Australia: “CSIRO provides impartial and independent advice and does not undertake modelling for specific policy directions.

“While we stand by the data provided, any alternative scenarios assessed by others would not carry CSIRO’s endorsement.”

O’Brien pointed to an assumption used in the GenCost report that nuclear plants would have a “capacity factor” – how often they are generating electricity relative to their maximum capacity – of between 53% and 89%.

O’Brien wanted the CSIRO to use a higher figure of 92.7% for nuclear based on the performance of plants in the US.

But the GenCost report discusses the reasons for setting capacity factors, saying new baseload generators such as nuclear “are expected to struggle to present the lowest cost bids to the dispatch market” and would, therefore, likely be generating less often.

O’Brien also wanted the CSIRO to model the full lifespan of nuclear plants – which could be as long as 80 years – and to add a start date of 2035 to its modelling.

The report provides cost estimates for power from different generation technologies, including both large and small reactors, for the years 2023, 2030 and 2040.

The CSIRO spokesperson said: “Specific issues in regard to economic life of generation assets and capacity utilisation, including large scale nuclear, have been assessed by the GenCost team as part of the consultation process for the 2023-24 report.”

Australia has never built a nuclear reactor for electricity and the technology has been banned since 1998.

The CSIRO report said if a decision was made in 2025 to adopt nuclear power, it would be at least 15 years until a reactor was producing power.

The report said: “Nuclear technologies need to undergo more extensive safety and security permitting, nuclear prohibitions need to be removed at the state and commonwealth level and the safety authorities need to be established.”

The report estimated if Australia could establish a nuclear industry, then a 1,000MW plant would cost $8.6bn, but the first reactors could cost double that amount – more than $17bn.

The report said: “Given the lack of a development pipeline and the additional legal and safety and security steps required, the first nuclear plant in Australia will be significantly delayed. Subsequent nuclear plant could be built more quickly as part of a pipeline of plants.”

May 30, 2024 Posted by | business | , , , , | Leave a comment

Among opposition leaders, Peter Dutton is a miracle survival story. But is he about to nuke himself with women voters?

ABC, By Annabel Crabb 29 May 24

Peter Dutton is a freak of nature. Politically, that is…………………………………

Two years in, Dutton is not only still in office, but nobody inside his own party — or even in the National Party — is trying to blow him out of it. It is a truly extraordinary achievement.

His public popularity remains firmly in negative territory, according to Newspoll. So why isn’t this translating into the customary seasonal orgy of backstabbing?

Two reasons.

The first is that there really isn’t, ahem, any alternative……………………………………………………………………………….

Dutton much a much more dangerous opponent for Anthony Albanese than is commonly assumed.

But there is one risk associated with this unseasonably warm bath of internal approbation……………………..his decision to pursue nuclear energy as a principal policy decision is a high-risk call, as a new piece of research — supplied to the ABC — makes clear……………………

When it comes to nuclear, public opinion divides along gender lines

Over recent weeks, the RedBridge Group conducted a survey of around 2,000 Australian voters, seeking their views on various issues including nuclear energy. Respondents were asked whether they would support or oppose an Australian government lifting the ban on nuclear power so private investors could build nuclear power plants here. 

The responses, across all voters, were kind of evenly divided. Strong supporters constituted 17 per cent, another 17 said they were supportive, 19 per cent were “neither”, 15 per cent were opposed, 20 per cent strongly opposed, and 12 per cent were unsure. This shakes out to an extremely slender net negative of-1

But the truly fascinating detail in the survey comes when you dig down into who especially loves the idea of nuclear, and who hates it.

And the biggest difference of opinion on nuclear, it turns out, breaks along gender lines……………….

Women disapproved of nuclear power strongly – just 7 per cent strongly agreed a ban should be lifted, compared with 24 per cent of male respondents. That’s a net negative of -29 for women, and net positive of 26 for men.

The only demographics showing real enthusiasm for nuclear power were Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 a week, and those who own their own home. In each of these instances, every other group was majority opposed.

In other words, every other party’s voters apart from the Coalition’s registered a net negative, as well as every other age bracket apart from the most elderly, and all other income brackets apart from the top one.

Renters and mortgage holders alike disapproved on the whole. Among those who described themselves as under “a great deal of financial stress”, the feeling on nuclear ran at negative 15. Among those under “no stress at all”, however, the reception was much warmer – positive 19…………………………………………………………………………….

And in the two years that have elapsed since female voters demonstrated their annoyance at being ignored and talked down to, the Liberal Party has failed to do anything about its structural under-representation of women in parliament, …………………………………………………………..

There always seems to be an abundance of reasons to get rid of women; almost as many reasons as traditionally abound for holding on to and even promoting male duds. Women do notice this stuff.

And “Never mind ladies, have a nuclear power plant” may not be a very compelling change of subject.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-29/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-policy-may-risk-alienating-women/103870338

May 30, 2024 Posted by | politics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear will cost Queensland jobs

JOINT STATEMENT Premier The Honourable Steven Miles, Minister for Energy and Clean Economy Jobs, The Honourable Mick de Brenni, 13 May, 2024  https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/100305

  • The LNP backed “Nuclear for Climate Australia” has identified multiple sites in North Queensland for nuclear reactors.
  • This would see nuclear reactors in Townsville, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Brisbane Valley, Toowoomba, the Darling Downs and more.
  • LNP going nuclear risks Copperstring jobs, critical minerals boom for Townsville to Mount Isa
  • Labor backs clean and renewable energy not nuclear.
  • The Miles Government is already delivering jobs and clean energy through the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan and development of the SuperGrid.
  • Those jobs would be at risk with the LNP’s nuclear plans.  

The Miles Government is focussing on clean energy jobs and has a working plan for a safe and responsible transition to renewable energy, that will protect existing jobs and create new ones.

Queenslanders from Townsville to Mt Isa are at the heart of Labor’s leading plan for a clean economy future.

Our plan to build CopperString will provide more than 800 jobs during construction and will unlock the $500 billion North West Minerals Province, by linking it with Hughenden and up to 6,000 MW of renewable energy.

This is the nation’s largest expansion to the power grid and it is paid for by progressive coal royalties.

By putting their fossil fuel friends before Queensland’s transition, the LNP is risking thousands of jobs and return to high unemployment.

The LNP’s nuclear option is an LNP recipe for a cost-of-living meltdown.  Nuclear is the most expensive option. It is 5 times the price of renewables.

International examples show it will take around 19 years to build a nuclear power station.

This is decades too late for Townsville employers who need clean, affordable energy now to remain competitive.

Nuclear is neither clean nor renewable. And it’s illegal in both Queensland and Australia.

The LNP backed proposal targets nuclear power stations in Townsville, Gladstone, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Brisbane Valley, Ipswich, Darling Downs, the Western Downs, Rockhampton, and Callide.

Quotes attributable to Premier Steven Miles:

“The LNP are proposing nuclear reactors right across this state. Up to three near Townsville, while they have earmarked locations on the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Brisbane Valley and Ipswich.

“What we know about those nuclear reactors is that they will be much more expensive. As much as five times more expensive for your household power bills.

“We also know that as a result of those reactors, future generations of Queenslanders will have to manage nuclear waste forever.

“That’s the LNP’s plan. Higher prices and nuclear waste; putting our waterways, our environment and our beautiful state at risk.”

Quotes attributable to Energy Minister Mick de Brenni:

“Everyone from Townsville Enterprise to the Queensland Resources Council backs Labor’s plan on renewable energy, because Copperstring means jobs and long-term prosperity for the region.

“The only exception is the LNP, who voted in Parliament to oppose the Energy and Jobs Plan, because they are opposed to renewables and public ownership.

“It seems that everybody in Townsville wants local manufacturing and jobs here, except David Crisafulli, who will not stand up to Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien and actually back Townsville jobs.

“We know how risky and expensive nuclear is and we know David Crisafulli deserted North Queensland for the glitter strip on the Gold Coast, and now he’s setting Townsville up for an unemployment and cost of living meltdown.

“North Queensland already has the world’s best plan to protect local jobs through the transition, so why would the LNP turn its back on the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan and Copperstring, just so they can cosy up to their big donors?

“Labor is backing renewable energy because it protects jobs in North Queensland, from Townsville to Mt Isa and beyond, and Labor is not prepared to risk those jobs.”

Quotes attributable To Thuringowa MP Aaron Harper:

“I do not want to see a nuclear reactor in Townsville and anywhere near the banks of the much loved and well used Ross River.

“Nobody in Thuringowa and the Upper Ross will accept nuclear waste travelling down Riverway Drive.

“We know the LNP back nuclear energy and are against renewable energy.

“We know that David Crisafulli and the state LNP are too weak to stand up to Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda.

“There are serious questions to answer from the LNP about their connections to Nuclear for Climate’s plan for nuclear power in Townsville.

“Peter Dutton and David Crisafulli’s nuclear agenda pose an unacceptable risk to Townsville.”

Background information:

  • Nuclear for Climate Australia, which has the backing of the Coalition, has identified multiple sites in Queensland as ideal spots to host nuclear reactors.
  • Nuclear power is currently illegal in Queensland.
  • Miles Government is delivering cheaper, cleaner, reliable power to develop the North West Minerals Province.
  • Nation’s largest expansion to the power grid – SuperGrid, not a MiniGrid.
  • CopperString will connect nation’s largest renewable energy zone at Hughenden and power a critical minerals industry that will supply world’s transition
  • CopperString will be 100% publicly owned

Fast Facts

  • Nuclear power production is prohibited under two pieces of legislation:
    • Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
    • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
  • CSIRO estimate the capital cost of small modular reactors in 2030 to be $15,959/kW, compared to wind at $2105/kW and solar at $1134/kW.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | employment, Queensland | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY: What is criminal in Ukraine, is God’s righteousness in Gaza

RUSSIA. US President Joe Biden welcomed the International Criminal Court’s issuing of an arrest warrant against his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

The ICC accused President Putin of committing war crimes in Ukraine – something President Biden said the Russian leader had “clearly” done…… President Biden said that … the issuing of the warrant “makes a very strong point”. The claims focus on the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia since Moscow’s invasion in 2022.

“He’s clearly committed war crimes,” he told reporters.

His administration had earlier “formally determined” that Russia had committed war crimes during the conflict in Ukraine, with Vice-President Kamala Harris saying in February that those involved would “be held to account”.

****************************

ISRAEL. President Joe Biden denounced the chief prosecutor of the world’s top war crimes court for seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders.

“What’s happening in Gaza is not genocide. We reject that,” Mr Biden said at a Jewish American Heritage Month event at the White House.

He said American support for the safety and security of Israelis is “ironclad”.

 Biden administration presents its policies to overcome legal and political questions about its unconditional support for Israel, and continues to send weapons to Israel.

The US has vetoed three separate ceasefire draft resolutions at the United Nations Security Council and voted against two at the General Assembly.

Rights groups have documented numerous violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli military, which extensively uses US weapons. Those reports include evidence of indiscriminate bombing, torture and targeting civilians.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pledge sought that laid-up Rosyth subs won’t go to Australia


By Clare Buchanan 27 May 24,  https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/24344727.pledge-sought-laid-up-rosyth-subs-wont-go-australia/

A ROSYTH councillor has called for assurances that rotting nuclear submarines will not be sent to Australia for disposal.

Brian Goodall, who is UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authority’s spokesperson on nuclear submarine decommissioning, said he has written to the UK’s foreign and defence secretaries. 

He’s asked for confirmation that vessels will not go overseas if a new Australian law passes without amendments.

Seven old subs have been laid up at Rosyth Dockyard for decades with Dreadnought being there for the longest – more than 40 years – waiting to be scrapped.

The UK and USA signed a pact with Australia to build and operate a new fleet of nuclear submarines which includes the provision of new conventionally armed, but nuclear powered, vessels for the Australian Navy.

To support the pact, legislators down under have proposed a new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024.

This appears to allow the disposal of high level radioactive waste from British and American submarines on Australian soil, and also for the storage of such materials in Australia from “a submarine that is not complete”.

In his letter to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps, Cllr Goodall expressed concern that this could theoretically mean permitting “the towing of redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal”.

He said he fears that this could result in the loss of local expertise and jobs if it comes into practice.

He adds: “Surely as the operators of our own submarines, the UK Government should remain responsible for the storage of the resultant high-level waste and for their safe decommissioning in home ports?

“Not only will this preserve the expertise in these matters that has developed after many years of trial and error, but, as a ward member for the Rosyth Dockyard, it will also preserve the jobs in my local community.”

Back in 2022, the Press reported pledges from the UK Government that all laid-up submarines would be gone as part of plans to “de-nuclearise Rosyth” by 2035.

Councillors were given an update on the programme to remove radioactive waste and turn the seven boats that have been parked at the dockyard for decades into “tin cans and razor blades”.

The Ministry of Defence have previously faced heavy criticism for the delays and sky-high costs in dealing with the nuclear legacy, with 27 Royal Navy subs to be scrapped in total.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »