The Slow-Motion Execution of Julian Assange Continues .
Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released.
The ruling by the High Court in London permitting Julian Assange to appeal his extradition order leaves him languishing in precarious health in a high-security prison. That is the point.
CHRIS HEDGES, MAY 24, 2024, https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-slow-motion-execution-of-julian-986?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=778851&post_id=144930141&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The decision by the High Court in London to grant Julian Assange the right to appeal the order to extradite him to the United States may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. It does not mean Julian will elude extradition. It does not mean the court has ruled, as it should, that he is a journalist whose only “crime” was providing evidence of war crimes and lies by the U.S. government to the public. It does not mean he will be released from the high-security HMS Belmarsh prison where, as Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, after visiting Julian there, said he was undergoing a “slow-motion execution.”
It does not mean that journalism is any less imperiled. Editors and publishers of five international media outlets —– The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL —– which published stories based on documents released by WikiLeaks, have urged that the U.S. charges be dropped and Julian be released. None of these media executives were charged with espionage. It does not dismiss the ludicrous ploy by the U.S. government to extradite an Australian citizen whose publication is not based in the U.S. and charge him under the Espionage Act. It continues the long Dickensian farce that mocks the most basic concepts of due process.
This ruling is based on the grounds that the U.S. government did not offer sufficient assurances that Julian would be granted the same First Amendment protections afforded to a U.S. citizen, should he stand trial. The appeal process is one more legal hurdle in the persecution of a journalist who should not only be free, but feted and honored as the most courageous of our generation.
Yes. He can file an appeal. But this means another year, perhaps longer, in harsh prison conditions as his physical and psychological health deteriorates. He has spent over five years in HMS Belmarsh without being charged. He spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy because the U.K. and Swedish governments refused to guarantee that he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S., even though he agreed to return to Sweden to aid a preliminary investigation that was eventually dropped.
The judicial lynching of Julian was never about justice. The plethora of legal irregularities, including the recording of his meetings with attorneys by the Spanish security firm UC Global at the embassy on behalf of the CIA, alone should have seen the case thrown out of court as it eviscerates attorney-client privilege.
The U.S. has charged Julian with 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of computer misuse, for an alleged conspiracy to take possession of and then publish national defense information. If found guilty on all of these charges he faces 175 years in a U.S. prison.
The extradition request is based on the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs — hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked to the site by Chelsea Manning, then an Army intelligence analyst, which exposed numerous U.S. war crimes including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints.
In February, lawyers for Julian submitted nine separate grounds for a possible appeal.
A two-day hearing in March, which I attended, was Julian’s last chance to request an appeal of the extradition decision made in 2022 by the then British home secretary, Priti Patel, and of many of the rulings of District Judge Baraitser in 2021.
The two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, in March rejected most of Julian’s grounds of appeal. These included his lawyers’ contention that the UK-US extradition treaty bars extradition for political offenses; that the extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting him for his political opinions; that extradition would amount to retroactive application of the law — because it was not foreseeable that a century-old espionage law would be used against a foreign publisher; and that he would not receive a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges also refused to hear new evidence that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian, concluding — both perversely and incorrectly — that the CIA only considered these options because they believed Julian was planning to flee to Russia.
But the two judges determined Monday that it is “arguable” that a U.S. court might not grant Julian protection under the First Amendment, violating his rights to free speech as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judges in March asked the U.S. to provide written assurances that Julian would be protected under the First Amendment and that he would be exempt from a death penalty verdict. The U.S. assured the court that Julian would not be subjected to the death penalty, which Julian’s lawyers ultimately accepted. But the Department of Justice was unable to provide an assurance that Julian could mount a First Amendment defense in a U.S. court. Such a decision is made in a U.S. federal court, their lawyers explained.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is prosecuting Julian, has argued that only U.S. citizens are guaranteed First Amendment rights in U.S. courts. Kromberg has stated that what Julian published was “not in the public interest” and that the U.S. was not seeking his extradition on political grounds.
Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released.
The extradition request is based on the contention that Julian is not a journalist and not protected under the First Amendment.
Julian’s attorneys and those representing the U.S. government have until May 24 to submit a draft order, which will determine when the appeal will be heard.
Julian committed the empire’s greatest sin — he exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, routine violation of human rights, wanton killing of innocent civilians, rampant corruption and war crimes. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, Trump or Biden — it does not matter. Those who manage the empire use the same dirty playbook.
The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Julian is extradited and convicted, it will become one.
Julian is in precarious physical and psychological health. His physical and psychological deterioration has resulted in a minor stroke, hallucinations and depression. He takes antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine. He has been observed pacing his cell until he collapses, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall. He has spent weeks in the medical wing of Belmarsh, nicknamed “hell wing.” Prison authorities found “half of a razor blade” hidden under his socks. He has repeatedly called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself “hundreds of times a day.”
These slow-motion executioners have not yet completed their work. Toussaint L’Ouverture, who led the Haitian independence movement, the only successful slave revolt in human history, was physically destroyed in the same manner. He was locked by the French in an unheated and cramped prison cell and left to die of exhaustion, malnutrition, apoplexy, pneumonia and probably tuberculosis.
Prolonged imprisonment, which the granting of this appeal perpetuates, is the point. The 12 years Julian has been detained — seven in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and over five in high-security Belmarsh Prison — have been accompanied by a lack of sunlight and exercise, as well as unrelenting threats, pressure, prolonged isolation, anxiety and constant stress. The goal is to destroy him.
We must free Julian. We must keep him out of the hands of the U.S. government. Given all he did for us, we owe him an unrelenting fight.
If there is no freedom of speech for Julian, there will be no freedom of speech for us.
Coalition’s brave nuke world a much harder sell after new CSIRO report
Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/26/coalitions-brave-nuke-world-a-much-harder-sell-after-new-csiro-report?CMP=soc_568
The agency’s GenCost analysis says a first nuclear plant for Australia would deliver power ‘no sooner than 2040’ and could cost more than $17bn
The Coalition’s pitch on nuclear energy for Australia has had two recurring themes: the electricity will be cheap and it could be deployed within a decade.
CSIRO’s latest GenCost report – a document that analyses the costs of a range of electricity generation technologies – contradicts both of these points. It makes the Coalition’s job of selling nuclear power plants to Australians ever more challenging.
For the first time, the national science agency has calculated the potential costs of large-scale nuclear electricity in a country that banned the generation technology more than a quarter of a century ago.
Even using a set of generous assumptions, the CSIRO says a first nuclear plant would deliver power “no sooner than 2040” and could cost more than $17bn.
It is likely to spark an attack on the credibility of the report from nuclear advocates and those opposed to the rollout of renewable energy. Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has already attacked the report.
In the meantime, Australia waits for the Coalition to say what kind of reactors it would deploy, where it would put them and how much it thinks they would cost.
Now that CSIRO has released its report, here’s what we know about the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia.
What’s new on nuclear costs?
CSIRO’s GenCost report says a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant would cost about $8.6bn to build, but that comes with some large caveats. The main one is that this was the theoretical cost of a reactor in an Australia that already had an established and continuous program of building reactors.
The $8.6bn is based on costs in South Korea, which does have a continuous reactor building program and is one country the least beset by cost blowouts.
To make the cost more relevant, CSIRO compared the Australian and South Korean costs of building modern coal plants. Costs were more than double in Australia.
But CSIRO warns the first nuclear plants in Australia would be subject to a “first of a kind” premium that could easily double the $8.6bn build cost.
In the UK, a country that has been building reactors intermittently, costs for its under-construction Hinkley C reactor (more than three times the size of a theoretical 1,000MW reactor in Australia) started at $34bn and could now be as high as $89bn.
In the United States, the country’s largest nuclear plant has just turned on its final unit seven years behind schedule and at double the initial cost. There are no more nuclear plants under construction in the country.
What about the cost of the electricity?
CSIRO also offers cost estimates for the electricity produced by large-scale reactors, but those too assume a continuous nuclear building program in Australia.
Electricity from large-scale reactors would cost between $141 per megawatt hour and $233/MWh if they were running in 2030, according to GenCost.
Combining solar and wind would provide power at between $73 and $128/MWh – figures that include the costs of integrating renewables, such as building transmission lines and energy storage.
What about those small modular reactors?
The Coalition has also advocated for so-called “small modular reactors” which are not commercially available and, CSIRO says, are unlikely to be available to build in Australia until 2040.
One United States SMR project lauded by the Coalition collapsed in late 2023 because the cost of the power was too high.
That project, CSIRO says, was significant because its design had nuclear commission approval and was “the only recent estimate from a real project that was preparing to raise finance for the construction stage. As such, its costs are considered more reliable than theoretical projects.”
GenCost reports that power from a theoretical SMR in 2030 would cost between $230 and $382/MWh – much higher than solar and wind or large-scale nuclear.
How quickly could Australia build a nuclear plant?
Nuclear advocates tend to point to low nuclear power costs in countries that have long-established nuclear industries.
Australia has no expertise in building nuclear power, no infrastructure, no regulatory agency, no nuclear workforce and a public that is yet to have a serious proposition put in front of it.
Australia’s electricity grid is fast evolving from one dominated by large coal-fired power plants to one engineered for and dominated by solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro with gas-fired power working as a rarely used backup.
This creates a major problem for the Coalition, because CSIRO estimates “if a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040.”
Tony Wood, head of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, says: “By 2040, the coal-fired power stations will be in their graves. What do you do in the meantime?”
“You could keep the coal running, but that would become very expensive,” he says, pointing to the ageing coal fleet that is increasingly beset by outages.
Wood says the GenCost report is only a part of the story when it comes to understanding nuclear.
The Coalition, he says, would need to explain how much it would cost to build an electricity system to accommodate nuclear.
Could you just drop nuclear into the grid?
The biggest piece of generation kit on Australia’s electricity grid is a single 750 megawatt coal-fired unit at Kogan Creek in Queensland. Other power stations are larger but they are made up of a series of smaller units.
But the smallest of the “large-scale” nuclear reactors are about 1,000MW and most are 1,400MW.
Electricity system engineers have to build-in contingency plans if large units either trip or have to be pulled offline for maintenance. That contingency costs money.
In Australia’s current electricity system, the GenCost report says larger nuclear plants would probably “require the deployment of more generation units in reserve than the existing system consisting of units of 750MW or less.”
But by the time a theoretical nuclear plant could be deployed, most if not all the larger coal-fired units will be gone.
Who might build Australian nukes?
Some energy experts have questioned whether any company would be willing to take up a contract to build a reactor in Australia when there are existing nuclear nations looking to expand their fleets.
Right now, nuclear reactors are banned federally and in several states.
The GenCost report also points to another potential cost-raiser for nuclear – a lack of political bipartisanship.
The report says: “Without bipartisan support, given the historical context of nuclear power in Australia, investors may have to consider the risk that development expenses become stranded by future governments.”
WA Liberals reject Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan
New Daily, AAP, May 26, 2024,
The Western Australia Liberal Party has poured cold water on the federal Coalition’s plan for nuclear power in the state, while backing coal to keep the lights on.
Energy spokesman Steve Thomas says federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power won’t work in WA.
“To get approvals and construction happening on a nuclear power plant, whatever the size is, is probably a 15-to-20-year timeframe,” he told reporters on Sunday.
“In the meantime, we have to keep the lights on we have to keep the air conditioners running and we have to do it at a cost that the community can afford.”
WA’s power system was small and a large cost-effective nuclear power plant wouldn’t work, Mr Thomas said.
“The size of the unit would matter significantly because as CSIRO has said, the small ones which will fit into our marketplace are more than two-to-three times as expensive per unit of electricity as the large ones,” he said.
“There might one day be room for a small one when the time is right and the business case steps up and the community accepts it.”
A CSIRO report released last week found building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would take 15 years, cost at least $8.5 billion and produce electricity about twice the cost of renewables.
Any nuclear plant in WA would need significant federal government investment and Mr Thomas said he was happy to look at Mr Dutton’s business case and continue talks.
“This is a long, ongoing discussion and we the state Liberals are not afraid of nuclear energy … but it has to stack up and it has to have support,” he said………………………………… https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2024/05/26/wa-liberals-reject-dutton-nuclear-plan
The ‘first-of-its-kind’ premium that could add billions to Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan
A new report from the CSIRO undermines federal Opposition claims that nuclear power could pave a cost-effective path to decarbonisation.
2 May 2024 By Gavin Butler https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-first-of-its-kind-premium-that-could-add-billions-to-peter-duttons-nuclear-power-plan/bugiw6tsa
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has previously suggested that, if elected at next year’s federal election, his government would construct seven large-scale nuclear reactors across Australia, using the sites of retiring coal plant
On Tuesday, Dutton claimed nuclear energy is “cheaper
KEY POINTS
- A new CSIRO report has found that renewable energy sources are much cheaper than nuclear in Australia.
- The report found electricity from nuclear power could be at least 50 per cent more expensive than solar and wind.
- The findings come as Peter Dutton and the federal Opposition continue to promote nuclear power plants.
A new report from the CSIRO has found it could cost as much as $17 billion and take more than 15 years to build a single nuclear power plant in Australia — and electricity from nuclear power could be at least 50 per cent more expensive than solar and wind.
The annual GenCost report, which compares nuclear power with other energy sources for the first time, undermines the federal Opposition’s claims that nuclear can provide cheap electricity to Australians.
“It’s the first time we looked at nuclear, so we were really interested ourselves to see how the numbers would fall out,” Paul Graham, lead author on the GenCost report, told SBS News.
Obviously we’ve got the capability to convert that cost into the cost of electricity, and we were very interested to find out how that would stand relative to other technologies.”
What the CSIRO researchers found is that nuclear is “a higher-cost technology than the ones we’re currently focused on as a country, which is solar and wind types of technologies”.
Breaking down the costs
Even when allowing for the extra costs of integrating solar and wind into the grid, a combination of solar and wind power remained the cheapest source of electricity, according to the GenCost report.
Depending on how much renewable energy was already in the system, electricity from a combination of solar and wind cost between $73 and $128 per megawatt hour (MWh). Large-scale nuclear reactors, by comparison, could cost between $141 and $233/MWh, while small modular reactors could cost between $230 and $382/MWh.
Researchers also found that a theoretical 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant, if built in Australia today, would cost at least $8.6 billion — but only if the government commits to a continuous building program, and “only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed”.
Given the country has never built a large reactor before, the report added, those costs could double due to what authors called a “first-of-a-kind” premium. That could mean the reactor ends up costing about $17 billion.
The report’s cost projections were based on South Korea’s successful nuclear program, using the comparative costs of building coal plants in each country as a guide.
What the Opposition says about nuclear power
The GenCost report comes as Australia’s federal Coalition promotes nuclear power plants as a way of reducing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels and decarbonising by 2050.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has previously suggested that, if elected at next year’s federal election, his government would construct seven large-scale nuclear reactors across Australia, using the sites of retiring coal plants.
On Tuesday, Dutton claimed nuclear energy is “cheaper, it’s more reliable, it’s zero emissions”.
“That’s why if you look at the top 20 economies in the world, Australia is the only one, at the moment, that hasn’t got nuclear power or hasn’t signed up to it,” he said.
Opposition Treasury spokesperson Angus Taylor doubled down on this commitment on Wednesday, speaking at the National Press Club after the GenCost report was released.
“We have been very clear on this. We see nuclear as part of the future of our energy system in Australia, it’s because we’re going to lose our baseload (the minimum amount of power needed to be supplied to the electricity grid at any one time),” Taylor said, suggesting that the country should be “securing long-term, cheap, clean power by opening the door to nuclear energy”.
TODAY. UK’s political omnishambles – a damper on the nuclear lobby
Oh dear, oh dear! What can UK PM Rishi Sunak be thinking of? Calling an election when his Conservative Party’s polling numbers are abysmal? And when the global nuclear lobby is boasting away about Britain’s splendid commitment to nuclear power!
Rishi is letting down his military-industrial-nuclear-media complex funders of the Tories.
But then, if this absolute basket-case of a UK government hangs on any longer – its credibility would no doubt go further down the toilet. A later election – even more of a Tory sensational disgusting morass. (Not that Rishi would care too much- would move on to a more lucrative job in private enterprise, as they all do)
Tory Energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: : “We intend to take a final investment decision on Sizewell C nuclear before the end of this Parliament.”
Sizewell nuclear station is planned for Wylfa, in Wales – “the best site in Europe for a big nuclear project”. Only problem is – they can’t seem to get investors for this project, into which the government has already poured £2.5bn of the needed circa £20bn.
Of course UK Labour is supposedly committed to the nuclear folly. The UK already faces a likely £48 billion cost for Hinkley Point C nuclear station. So, on paper, a Labour government is supposed to somehow cough up the finance for both of these gargantuan money-guzzlers.
The Tory government’s mess has stimulated a new word “omnishambles”.
It is quite possible that the coming Labour (or hung) government might want to show a bit of fiscal sanity and move away from this financially suicidal nuclear power push.
Dutton’s devoid-of-details nuclear plan an atomic failure
By Belinda Jones | 25 May 2024 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-devoid-of-details-nuclear-plan-an-atomic-failure,18632
Given the absence of substance in Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy so far, his ‘lack-of-details’ cry over The Voice must surely come back to haunt him, writes Belinda Jones.
TWO YEARS AGO, Nationals Leader David Littleproud called for a national discussion on nuclear energy.
Said Littleproud:
‘Peak business groups and unions are calling for the moratorium on nuclear power to be lifted, amid a push to ensure Australia is “technology agnostic” during its transition to cut emissions. It’s time to have the discussion.’
Almost two years later, neither Littleproud nor Dutton has yet produced anything of substance on the issue for the Australian public to consider — just broken promises and delays over when details on the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy will be delivered.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called on the Coalition to release details on its nuclear energy policy.
Dutton’s level of preparedness for a discussion on nuclear energy appears only to have extended to a tweet at this stage.
Since taking over the nuclear conversation, Dutton has incurred the ire of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which was forced to defend its reporting in a “rare intervention”
In March 2024, Dutton made incorrect claims about Australia’s national science agency’s costings and slammed its GenCost 2023/24 report, prompting a warning from CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton that public trust requires our political leaders refrain from disparaging science.
In a telling statement this week, Member for Wannon Dan Tehan pledged his support for the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy — just not in his electorate. This may be the reason for Dutton’s delay in releasing the policy details: a divided party room.
To be fair, mainstream media has attempted to elicit answers from Dutton for months now, to no avail. The public’s desire for detail on the Coalition’s nuclear policy is becoming more pressing as both the 2024 Queensland State and 2025 Federal Elections loom.
IA contacted Peter Dutton to try to get some direct answers for our readers, asking the following questions:
In terms of transmission of nuclear energy, what changes to existing power grids and transmission systems will have to be made to accommodate nuclear reactors or SMRs? What will be the cost and timeframe of those changes?
How many nuclear reactors or small nuclear reactors (SMRs) does the Liberal/National Coalition want to build?
What will be the average cost per nuclear reactor and SMR?
What is the estimated date of nuclear reactors or SMRs being operational?
Where will the proposed nuclear reactors or SMRs be located?
In proposed nuclear reactor or SMR locations, what steps has the Coalition taken to consult with the local community, environmental agencies and other levels of government about the impacts of the proposed nuclear reactor or SMR, and are any details of those consultations available to the public?
Does the Coalition plan for nuclear include significant taxpayer investment? If so, how much?
What budget measures will have to be taken to free up funding for nuclear reactors or SMRs, that is, what cuts in other areas of the budget will have to be made?
How many short-term jobs will be created during the construction phase of each proposed nuclear reactor or SMR? Will those jobs be mainly local jobs or FIFO?
Traditionally, government support of a new enterprise/industry is conditional on the creation of secure, new, ongoing jobs. Given the fact nuclear reactors and SMRs will likely be fully automated requiring very few jobs when operational, what is the quid pro quo for government funding? Will taxpayer funding secure an equity stake in nuclear businesses in return for government support in lieu of a significant number of jobs?
How will the nuclear reactors or SMRs be cooled? Do the proposed locations have enough water to support a nuclear reactor or SMR, especially during drought? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
Will the Coalition’s proposed nuclear reactors or SMRs draw water from the Great Artesian Basin at any time? If so, how much and what will be the impact?
What is the Coalition’s plan for the nuclear waste generated by nuclear reactors and SMRs and the long-term site repatriation costs and timeframe of any proposed nuclear reactor or SMR site?
What business groups, individual persons or businesses, or private investors have expressed interest to the Coalition in building nuclear reactors or SMRs? And what is the current estimate in dollar terms of that interest?
Are any of those business groups, individual persons or businesses, or private investors already invested in other industries associated with nuclear energy, such as mining and resources?
Two hours later we received a curt reply stating, ‘… we will announce further detail regarding our energy policy in due course’.
The email also suggested IA “continues its own research”.
This reply from Dutton’s office is wholly unsatisfactory, so IA will continue seeking answers from the Coalition to these important questions — answers that our readers have a right to know – until we get a more informative response. After all, it was the Coalition that called for a conversation on nuclear energy in the first place and its “plan” is to implement a nuclear policy if it wins office in less than 12 months.
Time is running out for Dutton to present his nuclear energy policy — important electoral dates approach.
But, clearly, the Coalition’s behaviour around the much-awaited policy details indicates how totally unprepared it is to hold government. It wants to lead the conversation and the country, yet it hasn’t put in the work. After almost two years of “discussion”, the Opposition still comes to the table empty-handed — no information, no plan, just a series of thought bubbles and meaningless L-NP talking points.
Dutton’s words –“When you deliberately keep the detail back, people become suspicious” – will no doubt come back to haunt him. Because when it comes to the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy — if Australians don’t know, they’ll vote no.
Powering ahead: Dutton to name nuclear sites within weeks
The Age, By James Massola, Mike Foley and Hamish Hastie, May 22, 2024
The federal opposition is set to announce the locations of up to seven proposed nuclear power sites in a matter of weeks, with two of the sites to be in Liberal-held seats and either four or five sites in Nationals-held seats.
Possible nuclear power plant sites that have been discussed within the Coalition include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in Western Australia, Port Augusta in South Australia, and even potentially a plant in Nationals leader David Littleproud’s electorate of Maranoa in south-west Queensland.
All of these sites currently host either coal or gas-fired power stations.
This masthead has been told by a coalition MP, who asked not to be named to brief on confidential deliberations, that the much-anticipated announcement of the six or seven sites – a closely guarded secret for months – has been finalised, and a policy launch has been pencilled in to take place by early June.
That MP said technical work on the Coalition’s policy was still under way, discussions had been held with nuclear construction companies who could build the plants, and that the launch, which would include detailed costings, was imminent.
The revelation that sites are all but locked in comes after a day of mixed messages from shadow ministers including Littleproud, Angus Taylor and Jane Hume over the timing and details of a policy that will be at the heart of the Coalition’s election pitch.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton dismissed the CSIRO’s annual GenCost report, which found that the first large scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost more than $16 billion and would not come on line before 2040, while the cost of subsequent reactors would ultimately fall to about $8 billion
Dutton questioned the credibility of the report as it was “based on the current government settings” and said it didn’t consider what he claimed was a more than trillion-dollar cost for the Albanese government’s renewables roll out.
The GenCost report factored in $40 billion worth of transmission lines as well as batteries by 2030 and still found an electricity network that was 80 per cent powered by renewables would provide cheaper power than gas, coal or nuclear power.
Asked when the Coalition would finally release its policy, Dutton said “we’ll provide that information in due course”, and added that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had said there were 12 months until the next election.
Dutton refused to say where the sites would be: “I haven’t ruled out or in any sites. I’ve said that we’re looking at coal-fired power stations that are coming to an end of life.”
Victorian Nationals MP Darren Chester, whose seat takes in much of the Latrobe Valley, last month spoke out to caution that his constituents would need a significant economic package if they were to host a nuclear power station.
Several MPs, who asked not to be named, expressed concern that the nuclear policy had been delayed after Dutton had flagged, back in March, that it would be released before the May federal budget.
One MP said “this is a complex policy and we will have to educate 26 million people. There will be a scare campaign from Labor and they will frame the next election as a referendum on nuclear.”
In March, 12 Coalition MPs publicly backed lifting the moratorium on nuclear power in Australia but would not commit to hosting a nuclear power plant in their own electorate.
Littleproud told Sky News on Wednesday that “we’re going to announce them, we’ve been very clear, we’ve been very honest about this, that we will get to juncture in the coming weeks”.
But Taylor told the National Press Club the opposition would release its energy policy “in the coming months”, and ruled out offering subsidies to ensure the plants are commercially viable……………………………………………………. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/powering-ahead-dutton-to-name-nuclear-sites-within-weeks-20240522-p5jflb.html
Australia can learn from the American experience with nuclear power
Amory B Lovins, May 21, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-can-learn-from-the-american-experience-with-nuclear-power/#google_vignette
During my current visit to Australia I’ve been surprised to see nuclear power promoted by the federal Coalition and by certain media.
Rather than fact-check the questionable claims of nuclear proponents, let me here outline the recent experience with nuclear power in my home country, the United States, and then discuss how that experience could inform the energy debate in Australia.
Nuclear power in the US is in decline. A dozen reactors have been shut down over the past decade — 41 in all. The decline will continue because US reactors average 42 years old, beyond their original design life. Of 259 US power reactors ordered since 1955, 94 are still in service; by 2017, only 28 remained competitive and hadn’t suffered at least one outage of at least a year. That’s an 11 percent success rate.
Only two nuclear power construction projects have commenced this century, and Australians should take careful note of those projects’ failure despite massive government support.
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, began construction for an estimated US$11.5bn total in 2013. It was abandoned in 2017 after costs rose to US$25bn, wasting US$9bn. Westinghouse soon filed for bankruptcy protection.
In addition to a $US9 billion hole in the ground, the V.C. Summer fiasco gave rise to the ‘nukegate’ scandal, a web of corruption that has already seen some culprits jailed with others likely to follow.
The other US reactor construction project was the Vogtle project in Georgia, also comprising two AP1000 reactors. It was recently completed but many years behind schedule and at extravagant cost, echoing similar experience in Finland, France, and the UK.
Westinghouse said in 2006 that it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion. The Vogtle project’s final cost was over 10 times greater at US$17.5 billion per reactor. That money that would have been far better spent on renewables and energy efficiency programs. Buying nuclear power instead displaced less fossil fuel per year and per dollar, worsening climate change.
Small modular reactors
The failure of large reactor construction projects has led the industry to pivot to so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). But SMRs don’t exist, unless you count two demonstration plants in Russia and China. SMRs are unlikely to improve the safety, security or waste problems of large reactors, and SMRs’ economics are even more unattractive than large reactors’.
NuScale Power, leading America’s most advanced SMR project, recently abandoned its flagship project in Idaho due to soaring costs despite about US$4bn in US government subsidies. With no other credible customers, the firm seems more likely to go bankrupt than to build any SMRs.
NuScale’s most recent cost estimate was an astronomical US$9.3 billion for a 462 megawatt (MW) plant with six 77-MW reactors. That’s US$20,100 per kilowatt (kW). Compare the actual 2023 market prices per kW found by leading US investment firm Lazard: US$700-1400 for utility scale solar PV and US$1025-1700 for onshore wind.
Nuclear’s higher capital cost per kW far outweighs its greater output per kW, leaving it several-fold out of the money before counting its substantial operating costs. And including grid integration costs would actually widen nuclear’s disadvantage because its outages tend to be bigger, longer, sharper, and less predictable than solar and wind power’s variations, requiring more and costlier backup.
Other companies hoping to develop SMRs or so-called ‘advanced’ reactors are faring no better. Indeed a pro-nuclear lobby group noted late last year that efforts to commercialize a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear enthusiasts not to “whistle past this graveyard”.
Coal-to-nuclear
The Coalition’s energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claims that “evidence keeps mounting that a coal-to-nuclear strategy is good for host communities, and especially workers as zero-emissions nuclear plants offer more jobs and higher paying ones.”
Mr. O’Brien has promoted Terrapower’s plan to replace coal with nuclear in Wyoming but the company is at the early stages of a licensing process and it is unclear whether finance can be secured or whether the adventurous new technology can ever get built and compete on the grid despite about US$2bn of government subsidy.
In 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were pending in the US. Nothing eventuated other than the abandoned South Carolina project and the recently completed Georgia project. No reactors — large or small — are currently under construction in the US. For the time being at least, we’re being spared the economic and climate costs of further disastrous nuclear projects.
Lessons for Australia
What lessons can Australia learn from the US experience?
Industry claims should be treated with skepticism. Early cost estimates for the Vogtle project were out by a factor of 10. Westinghouse’s claim that it could build an AP1000 reactor in “approximately 36 months” also proved to be wildly inaccurate: the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to build; closer to 20 years if you include the planning and licensing process.
Proponents claiming that Australia could have reactors operating by the mid-2030s are sadly mistaken. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will have closed long before nuclear reactors could take their place in the energy market.
It’s vital that Australians consider the fact that you would be starting a nuclear power industry with none of the United States’ 70-plus years’ experience – despite which 42 reactor projects were abandoned, 41 built but closed, and scores now operate only thanks to government rescues. It would be folly to imagine that Australia can do better.
The point was made sharply by NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet. A former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, Dr Durrant-Whyte said: “The hard reality is Australia has no skills or experience in nuclear power plant building, operation or maintenance – let alone in managing the fuel cycle. Realistically, Australia will be starting from scratch in developing skills in the whole nuclear power supply chain.”
Likewise, former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel states: “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.”
I’m pleased to learn that the Australian government aims to double renewable supply to the National Energy Market to reach 82 percent by 2030. It’s especially impressive to witness the world-class renewable energy revolution in South Australia, where renewables provide 74 percent of electricity on average and the state government aims to reach 100 percent net renewables as soon as 2027.
Nuclear power is a minor distraction, adding each year at best only as much electricity supply as renewables add every few days. It has no business case or operational need anywhere. Especially it has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.
Amory Lovins has been an energy advisor to major firms and governments in 70+ countries for 50+ years; has authored 31 books and about 900 papers; is an integrative designer of superefficient buildings, factories, and vehicles; and has won many of the world’s top energy and environmental awards. He is Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
We’ve underestimated the ‘Doomsday’ glacier – and the consequences could be devastating
The Thwaites Glacier, dubbed ‘Doomsday’, could trigger a two-foot rise in global sea levels if it melts completely
Katie Hawkinson, 22 May 24, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/thwaites-doomsday-glacier-melting-study-b2548765.html
A vast Antarcticglacier is more vulnerable to melting than previously thought, according to new research, with potentially devastating consequences for billions of people.
The Thwaites Glacier — dubbed the “Doomsday” glacier because of the grave impacts for global sea level rise if it melts — is breaking down “much faster” than expected, according to a peer-reviewed study published Monday in the academic journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Using satellite imagery, scientists determined that widespread contact between the glacier and warm ocean water is speeding up the melting process. The climate crisis is interrupting natural processes across large parts of the continent, according to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition.
The glacier, roughly the size of the United Kingdom, could cause global sea levels to rise more than 2 feet if it melts completely, according to the study.
“Thwaites is the most unstable place in the Antarctic and contains the equivalent of 60 centimeters of sea level rise,” study co-author Christine Dow said in a statement.
“The worry is that we are underestimating the speed that the glacier is changing, which would be devastating for coastal communities around the world,” she continued.
Record rising sea levels have already had severe consequences for coastal and island communities. In February, 1,200 residents of the island, Gardi Sugdub, began to relocate to mainland Panama as the rising Caribbean Sea overtake their home, according to the BBC.
As a result, the indigenous Guna people have become some of the first climate refugees in the Americas.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said last year that more than 900million people face extreme danger from rising sea levels — a projection made even before this week’s discovery about the rapidly-melting glacier.
Mr Guterres said cities across the globe including Mumbai, Shanghai, London, New York, and Buenoes Aires will face “serious impacts”
“The consequences of all of this are unthinkable,” he said. “Low-lying communities and entire countries could disappear forever. We would witness a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale. And we would see ever-fiercer competition for fresh water, land and other resources.”
CSIRO puts cost of new nuclear plant at $8.6bn as Coalition stalls on policy details
Report finds nuclear energy more expensive than renewable alternatives and calculates costs for large-scale reactors for first time
Graham Readfearn, Guardian, 22 May 24
Electricity from nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind, according to a report from the CSIRO that has for the first time calculated costs for large-scale reactors.
The federal Coalition, which has claimed nuclear would provide cheap electricity, is still to reveal any details on its nuclear policy after initially promising it would make an announcement in time for last week’s federal budget.
This week the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said more plans would be released “in due course” and he has yet to say where plants might be built or how large they would be.
The Coalition would first have to overturn a federal ban on nuclear power. Several state government bans also exist.
According to CSIRO’s GenCost report, a theoretical 1,000MW nuclear plant built today would cost at least $8.6bn.
The report said nuclear costs in that range “can only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed”.
The capital costs of a large nuclear plant could double in a country that has never built a large reactor before, the report said………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/22/australia-nuclear-power-plants-csiro-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-plan
TODAY. The insanity of DEFENSE: with climate change, Defense becomes our real enemy
Up until now, a few publications have warned about the dangers of climate change to nuclear facilities, and how they need protection from wildfires, floods etc.
But now, at last, a bit of attention is being paid to the danger of nuclear facilities, to all of us, in this rapidly heating world.
I shudder to think of the risks that hang over Russians – because of the perpetual super-secrecy and censorship that pervades Russia, regarding nuclear and associated serious issues. We know that there is huge cover-up in the USA and other Western nuclear nations, but covering-up is probably a hundred times worse in Russia.
The global nuclear industry is geared to weaponry. That is the sole real reason for its existence. Armaments are, of course, an extremely lucrative industry – so greed adds to the motivation. And of course, that holy cow of Western culture – JOBS JOBS JOBS. (never mind if those jobs are or are not of any real value to society)
2024 looks like producing a sizzling summer in the North of this planet.:
- AccuWeather Summer 2024 U.S. Forecast: Sizzling Summer Temperatures.
- Periods of abnormally high temperatures will become more common and intense in Russia.
- Canada risks more ‘catastrophic’ wildfires with hot weather forecast
The thing is: people are at risk from radioactive releases as nuclear facilities – as nuclear waste pools, nuclear weapons sites producing plutonium – can be impacted by wildfires, floods.
With global heating – these places pose an increasing danger to humanity (and other species) -Texas’ Pantex Plant and its plutonium pits, New Mexico’s Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, Washinton’s plutonium-contaminated Hanford nuclear site.
While Russia has dumped much of its nuclear waste into the sea. On land the Mayak, and Lake Karachay in the Southern Urals is the most plutonium polluted (open-air) place on Earth from a radiological point of view, and is predicted to have extreme heat waves in 2024.
Canada’s nuclear wastes are at Manitoba and Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, and at nuclear reactors at Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick – Ontario 66 wildfires in 2023.
So – while the world’s national macho men – and their military-industrial-nuclear-media complex are drumming up fear of attack from each other – the real danger is their foolish but lucrative “defense” industries.
This is insanity.
Sanity would be getting together, talking about our mutual danger problem, and working out ways to co-operate on making these sites safe, and on not producing any more radioactive trash.
Peter Dutton to reveal nuclear power locations ‘soon’ amid energy debate
MY COMMENT on Dutton’s statement – He said the report was a blueprint for investors, and the Coalition was centring its nuclear policy around what would be best for consumers.
So Dutton thinks that if nuclear power is bad for investors, it would somehow be good for the public – “consumers”
Well, I guess that means that it would have to be paid for by tax-payers?
The backyards where the Coalition plans to build nuclear power plants will be announced “soon”, as Australia’s energy debate ramps up.
Ellen Ransley, May 23, 2024
Australians “won’t have to wait long” to find out if the Coalition plans to build a nuclear reactor in their backyard, with policy and possible locations to be announced soon.
The Coalition won’t be drawn on reports it is set to announce the locations of up to seven proposed power sites within weeks, which according to Nine Newspapers, could include sites in two Liberal-held seats and four or five Nationals-held seats.
They reportedly include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and potentially a plant in the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud.
All of those areas currently house coal or gas-fired power stations.
Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien wouldn’t comment directly on whether the opposition had those sites in its sights, offering instead a promise of an announcement “in due course”………………………..
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the Coalition’s plan was “still a fantasy
Why doesn’t Peter Dutton just front up and tell us. It was coming nine weeks ago!” she told Sky News.
“We need to know where they will go, how much they will cost, and when they will be released.”
Asked directly if Collie was a location, Mr Dutton said he hadn’t “ruled it out or in”.
“I’ve said that we’re looking at coal-fired power stations that are coming to an end of life,” he said.
Mr Dutton also dismissed the CSIRO’s annual GenCost report, after it found the country’s hypothetical first large-scale nuclear reactor could cost up to $17bn and take until 2040 to be built.
Moreover, the report found the cost of the electricity it would generate would be twice as much as that of renewables.
Mr Dutton said the report was “based on the current government settings, which are against the use of nuclear”, and said it didn’t consider what he claimed was a more than trillion dollar cost for the government’s renewables rollout.
Mr O’Brien said while some of the capital cost assumptions in the report were unproblematic, it was “hard to say exactly what the first plant would cost”.
He said the report was a blueprint for investors, and the Coalition was centring its nuclear policy around what would be best for consumers.
“Once you have nuclear in the mix, prices come down,” he said.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, meanwhile, said the CSIRO report “torpedoes” Mr Dutton’s nuclear “fantasy”.
“I think the CSIRO has completely torpedoed this uncosted nuclear fantasy of Peter Dutton’s,” he said.
“The madness of this I think is laid bare in the CSIRO report for Australia we have immense opportunity in the renewable sector as the world transitions to net zero.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/22/australia-nuclear-power-plants-csiro-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-plan
Renewables and storage still cheapest option, nuclear too slow and costly in Australia – CSIRO
Giles Parkinson, May 22, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-and-storage-still-cheapest-option-nuclear-too-slow-and-costly-in-australia-csiro/
Australia’s main scientific body, the CSIRO, has reaffirmed its assessment that integrated renewable energy is by far the cheapest option for Australia, and that nuclear – be it large scale or small modular reactors – is too slow and too costly.
The CSIRO’s findings have been consistent since the first of its now annual GenCost reports was released under the then Coalition government in 2018. In fact the gap between renewables and nuclear has widened, despite the addition of integration and transmission costs to wind and solar, even with up to a 90 per cent renewable share.
Its draft report released late last year re-affirmed that nuclear – the chosen technology of new Coalition leader Peter Dutton and his energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, remained by far the costliest energy choice for Australia.
Dutton is digging in on nuclear, and amid furious attacks from right wing media and so-called think tanks, the Coalition has tried to discredit the CSIRO GenCost report, which is produced in conjunction with energy experts at the Australian Energy Market Operator.
The nuclear boosters were particularly frustrated by the CSIRO’s costings on SMR (small modular reactors), which was based on the NuScale project in the US, the only SMR in the western world to get close to construction, but which was abandoned because of soaring costs that caused its customers to withdraw their support.
The nuclear boosters, and the federal Coalition, want the CSIRO and AEMO to accept the cost forecasts from salesmen for SMR technologies that remain largely on the drawing board and which – unlike the failed NuScale project – have no real world verification.
The CSIRO has now released its final GenCost report, prepared in conjunction with AEMO, and which it describes as the most comprehensive assessment of generation costs ever produced in this country.
The CSIRO has bent over backwards to respond to the criticism from the nuclear lobby, and added an estimated cost in Australia for large scale nuclear. It says is not as pricy as SMR technology, but is still at least double the cost of integrated renewables, and wouldn’t be possible before 2040 even if a commitment was made now.
That’s important, because Australia is the midst of a renewable energy transition that aims for an 82 per cent renewable energy share by 2030. Climate science dictates that speed of emissions cuts is now critically important, and by 2040 the country should be at or close to 100 per cent renewables.
The addition of large scale nuclear was one of a number of changes to the GenCost report from its 2023 edition, including a return to calculations for solar thermal, a technology hoping for its own renaissance, the inclusion of spilled energy from wind and solar, and – in response to more feedback – including integration costs incurred before 2030.
It doesn’t change the picture that much. Wind and solar are still by far the cheapest, in 2023 and in 2030, even though an expected cost reduction for wind energy – whose prices spiked after the Covid pandemic and energy crisis – is now not expected to take much longer until the mid 2030s.
Solar costs, however, are still falling, and it’s important to note that renewable integration costs for 80 per cent renewables in 2030 are less than $100/MWh. Even assuming the money is spent now, before expected cost reductions, the cost for an 80 per cent wind and solar grid in 2023 is put at $120/MWh.
Compare that to the estimated costs for nuclear, which in terms of the political and public debate, are the most revealing, and just a little inconvenient for the Coalition, whose attacks on the CSIRO and AEMO ignore the fact that the same conclusions were reached under its own governance.
The final GenCost report highlights how the favoured technologies of the conservatives – be they nuclear, gas, gas with CCS and coal with CCS – are so much higher than solar and wind with firming. SMRs are four to six times the cost of integrated renewables, and the first projects are likely to be significantly higher.
Large scale nuclear is twice as expensive, again without considering the first of its kind costs which would be necessary in Australia, and without considering the considerable costs of added reserve capacity needed because the plants are so big.
It also does not take into account how nuclear, with its “always on” business model could fit into a future grid already dominated by renewables and needing flexible capacity to support it, not redundant baseload.
Even with the full integrated costs itemised for both the 2023 and the 2030 assessments, the difference is clear.
CSIRO says that its draft GenCost received more submissions than any previous edition, with most of the 45 submissions coming from individuals who support nuclear.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Australian energy industry is the slightest bit interested in the technology, because of its costs and the timelines. As US energy expert Amory Lovins wrote for Renew Economy this week, nuclear “has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.”
Indeed, two of the most prominent public faces of the pro-nuclear campaign in Australia have been a school student and an emergency doctor from Ontario, who have both received remarkable amounts of publicity in mainstream media despite their lack of industry knowledge.
The CSIRO points out that the large scale nuclear costs are at best estimates, because there is no nuclear industry in Australia, and no regulatory framework. First of its kind developments are likely to be exorbitant, but even basing its estimates on the South Korea experience puts the costs of large scale nuclear at a multiple of renewables.
The nuclear lobby has been insistent that wind and solar costs need to factor in the integration costs of the technologies in the grid, including storage and transmission, so no doubt they will insist that the CSIRO now does the same with large scale nuclear.
It is not likely to be cheap. As CSIRO notes, large scale nuclear units normally ranges in size from 1 GW to 1.4 GW or more, far bigger than the biggest coal unit in Australia, which is 750 MW. That will require added reserve capacity of equivalent size in case of an unexpected outage or unplanned maintenance.
In the UK, the regulator estimated that the additional reserve capacity of the Hinkley C nuclear plant would be in the order of $12 billion, on top of the now blown out costs of up to $92 billion for that reactor.
The project that had promised to be “cooking turkeys” by 2017, looks to be a cooked turkey itself by the time it gets switched on in 2031.
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen said the GenCost report validated the Labor government’s focus on renewables, and underlined the risky nature of the Coalition’s “half-baked” goal of keeping ageing coal fired power plants operating until nuclear can be delivered in the 2040s.
“Were small modular nuclear reactors able to be up and running in Australia by 2030, which they aren’t, the ‘first of a kind’ scenario is a cost of between $294/MWh and $764/MWh,” Bowen said. “Meaning small modular nuclear reactors would be up to more than nine times more expensive than firmed large-scale wind and solar.
“We know that Australia has the best solar resources in the world, and today’s report shows large-scale solar alone is 8 per cent cheaper to build than a year ago,” he said.
“We know Australia doesn’t have that time (to wait for nuclear) – 24 coal plants announced their closure dates under the previous government, and 90% of Australia’s coal-fired power is forecast to close by 2035.”
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
Isle of Wight-size iceberg breaks from Antarctica
BBC News, Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent, 20 May 24
Another big iceberg has broken away from an area of the Antarctic that hosts the UK’s Halley research station.
It is the third such block to calve near the base in the past three years.
This new one is not quite as large, but still measures some 380 sq km (145 sq miles) – roughly the size of the Isle of Wight.
The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) took the precaution of moving Halley in 2017 because of concerns over the way the local ice was behaving.
Its buildings were shifted on skis to take them away from immediate trouble.
The station is also now routinely vacated during the long dark months of the southern winter. The last personnel were flown out in February.
Halley sits on top of the Brunt Ice Shelf, which is the floating protrusion of glaciers that have flowed off the continent into the Weddell Sea.
This shelf will periodically shed icebergs at its forward edge and it is currently going through an extremely dynamic phase.
In 2021, the shelf produced a berg the size of Greater Paris (1,300 sq km/810 sq miles) called A74, followed in 2023 by an even bigger block (1,500 sq km/930 sq miles) the size of Greater London, known as A81.
The origin of the new berg goes back to a major crack that was discovered in the shelf on 31 October, 2016. Predictably, it was nicknamed the “Halloween Crack”.
A further fracture perpendicular to Halloween has now cut a free-floating segment of ice that has already begun to drift out into the Weddell Sea………………..
Satellite imagery confirms the GPS data. The berg is surrounded by seawater on all sides.
The loss of so much ice from the Brunt structure these past three years has triggered a rapid acceleration in the shelf’s seaward movement.
Historically, it has flowed forward at a rate of 400-800m (1,300-2,600ft) per year. It is now moving at about 1,300m (4,300ft) a year………………………….
“This latest calving reduces the Brunt Ice Shelf to its smallest observed size,” commented remote sensing specialist Prof Adrian Luckman, from Swansea University…………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033wr32ewno
Lidia Thorpe warns new laws will turn Australia into “the world’s nuclear waste dump”
Giovanni Torre – May 13, 2024, https://nit.com.au/13-05-2024/11377/lidia-thorpe-warns-new-laws-will-turn-australia-into-the-worlds-nuclear-waste-dump?mc_cid=a41a81cd8c&mc_eid=261607298d
Senator Lidia Thorpe has warned new legislation to regulate nuclear safety of activities relating to AUKUS submarines has left Australia open to becoming “the world’s nuclear waste dump”.
Under the AUKUS deal, the federal government agreed to manage nuclear waste from Australian submarines, but under legislation to be introduced in June, Australia could be set to take nuclear waste from UK and US submarines also, Senator Thorpe warned.
The Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung independent senator for Victoria called on the government to urgently amend the bill to prohibit high-level nuclear waste from being stored in Australia, a call she said is backed by experts in the field and addresses one of the major concerns raised during the inquiry into the bill.
“This legislation should be setting off alarm bells, it could mean that Australia becomes the world’s nuclear waste dump,” Senator Thorpe said on Monday.
“The government claims it has no intention to take AUKUS nuclear waste beyond that of Australian submarines, so they should have no reason not to close this loophole.
“Unless they amend this bill, how can we know they’re being honest? They also need to stop future governments from deciding otherwise. We can’t risk our future generations with this.”
In March, Senator Thorpe questioned Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong about the long-term cost from storage of nuclear waste, and whether Australia would take on foreign nuclear waste under the AUKUS deal. The minister responded that this cost is not included in the current $368 billion estimated for AUKUS, and she could not confirm that foreign waste would not be stored in Australia.
Senator Thorpe noted that the US Environmental Protection Agency warns high-level nuclear waste remains dangerous for at least 10,000 years; managing the risk posed by the decommissioned fuel rods from the AUKUS submarines would require storage and management that is future-proof, something that has proven challenging even in countries with advanced nuclear industries.
She also pointed out on Monday that the bill has also been criticised for lack of transparency and accountability; and allows the Minister of Defense to bypass public consultation and override federal and state laws to determine sites for the construction and operation of nuclear submarines, and the disposal of submarine nuclear waste.
Senator Thorpe said there are serious concerns about a lack of community consultation and the risk of violating First Peoples right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
Historically, governments have tried to push the storage of radioactive waste on remote First Nations communities, with successful campaigns in Coober Pedy, Woomera, Muckaty, Yappala in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba fighting off these attempts.
“We’ve seen how far the major parties will go to ingratiate themselves with the US. Labor must amend this bill to prove they’re putting the interests of our country first,” Senator Thorpe said.
“And they need to change the powers that allow the Minister and the Department to choose any place they like for nuclear waste facilities with no oversight or community consultation.
“That’s complete overreach and will undermine First Peoples rights for Free, Prior and Informed Consent under the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
The senator said “time and again” governments have attempted to turn remote communities into nuclear waste dumps, with the risks from nuclear waste always being put on First Peoples.
“I’m concerned that this time it will be no different,” she said.
“The Bill allows the government to contract out liability for nuclear safety compliance, includes no emergency preparedness or response mechanisms, no consideration of nuclear safety guidelines from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and leaves many other questions on nuclear safety unanswered.”
“This Bill fails to set out a nuclear safety framework for the AUKUS submarines and instead focuses on defence objectives, while sidestepping safety, transparency and accountability. It’s a negligent and reckless bill that should not pass the Senate.”
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 