Today. My dilemma in writing about nuclear issues.
This might be a peculiarly Australian dilemma. I don’t know. The thing is – most people seem able to tolerate a bit of criticism of the nuclear industry. And indeed, when I post articles on my websites – nuclear-news.net and antinuclear.net, or on my newsletter, – that’s OK.
But if I bring in the subject of Ukraine, or especially of Gaza and Israel, – people get upset. What has that got to do with the nuclear industry? (Well, a lot really – as both situations bring us ever closer to the brink of nuclear war).
The big problem is this. As part of an Australian, and indeed worldwide, movement, for a safe clean nuclear-free world, my stuff is accepted as worthwhile. But, when I digress into examining what is going on in Ukraine, or worse, in Israel – then I am no longer to be trusted. Indeed, I am sometimes being called a Putin-lover, a communist. a terrorist – and especially anti-semitic.
As a consequence, then my anti-nuclear coverage is not to be trusted, either. It’s OK to be anti-nuclear – that’s a respectable opinion, as long as you’re pro Ukraine and pro Israel.
I really don’t know how to deal with this. It seems that, to be respected at all, it is necessary to conform to certain dogmas, such as “Russia is always evil” and “Israelis are holy victims”.
In my view – Putin is a murderous thug, but Russia is not always to blame, and Russian policies and aspirations should be viewed fairly.
Similarly, I think that the Jews, over history, have been terribly persecuted and murdered, but that doesn’t give Israel the licence to now do mass murder of the Gazan people.
There’s a dreadful conformity in Australia, and perhaps in all supposedly-white, English speaking countries. We must side with Ukraine, no matter what. And we must not be seen to be anti-semitic, no matter what.
So – I am left with the dilemma – should I ignore those two nuclear-war-trigger situations, in order to sound credible about nuclear matters?
Should I act “nice” about what Israel is doing, and pretend that I don’t notice? That is all too easy to do, in Australia, with its relentless media focus on sport.
Nuclear boondoggle | The West Report
News Corp and their boy Peter Dutton won’t give up spruiking nuclear energy, though it’s too expensive and could never arrive on time. Why?
by Michael West | Mar 2, 2024 | The West Report
Get These Rich People Off the Moon
Other than allowing billionaires and private companies to benefit from taxpayer-funded pipe dreams and advertising, the value of going to the moon for all mankind is not at all clear.
The US military has also expressed an interest in renting Starships for their Space Force cargo and troops — delivering war to poor countries anywhere in the world within one hour.
Despite the mess it makes on Earth, NewSpace investments are growing in popularity among everyman-for-himself superrich techies
BY PETER HOWSON,on behalf of Koohan Paik-Mander
Texas start-up Intuitive Machines has achieved the first moon landing by a private firm. It’s dumping rich people’s detritus on the lunar surface — a grim sign of how the superrich plan to plant their flag beyond our own planet.
Amid tears of joy at their Houston control room, the Texas start-up Intuitive Machines successfully landed on the moon. Their uncrewed lander, known as Odysseus, hitched a ride on a SpaceX rocket last week, touching down near the moon’s south pole on Thursday. After many failed attempts by various private outfits, Intuitive Machines is the first private company to plant a free-market flag on the moon
In January, a different US private venture crashed back to Earth. Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander had been supposed to dispose of at least seventy dead rich people (and one rich dog) on the lunar surface.
Spending billions of dollars dumping odd things in space has become a tradition among the lunar classes. Elon Musk famously sent a Tesla Roadster as the dummy payload for the 2018 Falcon Heavy test flight. Driven by a mannequin in a spacesuit dubbed “Starman,” the car is now an enduring satellite of the sun. You can track him, if you like.
The Japanese isotonic drinks company Pocari Sweat has been trying to leave a can of pop on the moon since 2014. It finally crashed with Astrobotic’s failed $100 million lander. The Japanese still plan to send a hydrogen-powered Toyota “Lunar Cruiser” up there, despite a few explosive setbacks.
Toxic Effects
Other than allowing billionaires and private companies to benefit from taxpayer-funded pipe dreams and advertising, the value of going to the moon for all mankind is not at all clear. British astronaut Tim Peake suggests the microgravity up there might one day enable exotic treatments for all sorts of diseases, albeit expensive treatments for those who can afford them. Aside from body parts, fizzy pop, and “art,” the squillion-dollar landers are packed full of instruments designed for exploring the unknown, before anyone else gets their mitts on it.
So called “NewSpace” companies are on the prowl for profitable rare earth metals, helium-3, and water. Just like the spice of Arrakis, helium-3 is being pitched as “the most precious resource in the universe.” At least it might be if someone invents a use for it. Getting large quantities of water to space is pricey. A stable reservoir will keep plebs alive while they mine for spice. And both hydrogen and oxygen can make the rocket fuel needed to search for shiny things further afield.
It all sounds very exciting. But realizing these fantasies has costs for the rest of us. According to Atrium, a big insurer for rocket-makers, early space-faring outfits should typically expect 30 percent of their launches to end in catastrophic failure. When two separate SpaceX Starship launches in Texas went south last year, toxic particulates rained down on people’s homes. Debris broke windows and caused fires that burned across Boca Chica Park, home to endangered birds and ocelot cats.
“We never gave our consent,” said one indigenous Carrizo-Comecrudo representative at a SpaceX protest in South Texas. “Yet they [SpaceX] are moving forward. It’s colonial genocide of native people and native lands.” Bekah Hinojosa of the Texas environmental group Another Gulf Is Possible claims environmental deregulation, tax breaks, and subsidies have been used by the Texas state government to lure SpaceX in. Meanwhile local indigenous communities who rely on Boca Chica’s fish to feed their families feel their customary land is being sacrificed.
For the Navajo people, the costly blunders are no bad thing. The Navajo hold the moon to be sacred, and consider fly-tipping and mining there an act of profound desecration. According to the Navajo Nation’s president Dr Buu Nygren, “The sacredness of the Moon is deeply embedded in the spirituality and heritage of many Indigenous cultures, including our own.”
Wars on Our Home Planet
Yet, despite the mess they’re making, SpaceX plans on going bigger and bigger.
SpaceX will soon be moving its monster Starship boosters from Boca Chica to the much larger Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Like the Falcon 9, SpaceX’s Starship is designed as a workhorse for frequent, repeated flights. Instead of only a couple of launches per year, Kennedy will start to resemble an airport. The same powerful and destructive super heavy-lift rockets that devastated Boca Chica will be lifting off on a near daily basis from the Florida coast.
The US military has also expressed an interest in renting Starships for their Space Force cargo and troops — delivering war to poor countries anywhere in the world within one hour.
NewSpace is scaling up US geopolitical influence behind a facade of free-market competition. In Indonesia, SpaceX has edged out Beijing to become the country’s satellite launch partner of choice. The partnership was achieved through the personal relationship Musk nurtured with outgoing Indonesian president Joko Widodo. The deal marks a rare instance of a US company making inroads in Indonesia, whose telecommunications sector is dominated by Chinese outfits offering low costs and easy financing. Some see the SpaceX deal as just a sweetener for Musk to build a new Tesla factory somewhere in Indonesia. The electric vehicle-maker has so far signed contracts worth billions for Indonesia’s nickel and other essential materials for the company’s car batteries.
As well as ripping up Indonesia’s pristine forests for luxury car bits, plans to furnish Musk with a new spaceport on the island of Biak, Papua, is fermenting anger among indigenous Warbon peoples. Clearances for the spaceport are reigniting ethnic tensions and military violence. Somewhere between 40 and 150 Papuans protesting the spaceport have been killed by the Indonesian military since the plans were originally unveiled.
Real People Are Gross
Despite the mess it makes on Earth, NewSpace investments are growing in popularity among everyman-for-himself superrich techies.
For them, dealing with today’s real social and environmental problems tends to involve paying icky taxes and/or remunerating their workers fairly. Meanwhile, finding solutions for potential future problems is far more profitable. For billionaires, “longtermism” packages up this predicament beautifully.
Factoring future populations into decision-making models is just a nice, sustainable thing to do. Longtermism on the other hand, is too much of a good thing. It’s an extreme utilitarian, accelerationist ideology asking us to drastically increase rates of economic growth and technological advancement to ensure humanities’ long-term survivability as a multiplanetary species.
Meanwhile, taxes and government interventions are framed as an impediment to growth and innovation. For these longtermists, someone potentially not being born on Mars in the far distant future is in many ways far worse than someone actually dying of a preventable disease or poverty today. Mars guy is super smart and loaded. Unlike the stinky real person, Mars guy is likely to live a long happy life free of dysentery. He’s white because rich people tend to be that way.
If this all sounds a bit fascist, that’s because it is. According to Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, widely considered the founding father of longtermism, “blacks are more stupid than whites,” as he once said on an extropian community message board. “I like that sentence and think it is true.” Bostrom then used an offensive slur beginning with “N.” “It seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility,” he argued. “If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species.” He later apologized for coming across as “racist.”
Thanks in part to Musk, the cost of space travel has dropped considerably. A seat on a Falcon 9 rocket and an eight-day stay on the International Space Station (ISS) now only costs $82 million. Musk predicts his one-way tickets to Mars will cost somewhere between $500,000 to $1 million, a price at which he thinks “it’s highly likely that there will be a self-sustaining Martian colony.” For the poors, Musk has an indentured labor package where workers take out a loan to pay for their tickets, paying them off later by mining for spice or something.
Life on Earth will end one day (we have somewhere between one and five billion years). But the universe will also end. What then? We could just keep on running through the vacuum of a dying universe. Or, instead of living as slaves obsessing over spice and birth quotas for some odious space baron, we could take a leaf from the Navajo’s book, taking the moon for sacred, and mountains, lakes, and rivers, too. If we treat our planet right, we might just live longer and better.
I’ll admit: I wrote two versions of this article, depending on the fate of the Intuitive Machines lander. In 1969, President Richard Nixon did something similar, just in case everyone died onboard Apollo 11. But when it comes to NewSpace, there’s no need for tears or alternative endings.
Private space missions will only ever serve the billionaires, not us.
If we make no effort to change direction, we will end up where we are heading.”
Texas wildfires continue to pose threat to Pantex nuclear weapons plant, and climate change will bring further threats to nuclear facilities
By Jessica McKenzie, François Diaz-Maurin | February 28, 2024
A wildland fire in the Texas Panhandle forced the Pantex plant, a nuclear facility northeast of Amarillo, to temporarily cease operations on Tuesday and to evacuate nonessential workers. Plant workers also started construction on a fire barrier to protect the plant’s facilities.
The plant resumed normal operations on Wednesday, officials said.
“Thanks to the responsive actions of all Pantexans and the NNSA Production Office in cooperation with the women and men of the Pantex Fire Department and our mutual aid partners from neighboring communities, the fire did not reach or breach the plant’s boundary,” Pantex said in a social media post on Wednesday afternoon.
At a press conference Tuesday evening, Laef Pendergraft, a nuclear safety engineer with the National Nuclear Security Administration production office at Pantex, said the evacuations were out of an “abundance of caution.”
“Currently we are responding to the plant, but there is no fire on our site or on our boundary,” Pendergraft told reporters.
The 90,000-acre Windy Deuce fire burning four to five miles to the north of the Pantex plant was 25 percent contained as of late Wednesday afternoon.
Until the fire is fully contained, it will continue to pose a threat to the nearby Pantex plant, says Nickolas Roth, the senior director of nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “I think the sign that the coast is clear is that the fire is no longer burning,” he told the Bulletin. “One can imagine many reasons operations would resume.”……………………………………….
While the specific cause of the Smokehouse Creek fire has not yet been identified, climate change is making explosive wildfires more likely, with serious implications for the country’s nuclear weapons programs.
Since 1975, the Pantex plant has been the United States’ primary facility responsible for assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons. It is one of six production facilities in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Nuclear Security Enterprise.
In addition to warhead surveillance and repair, the plant is currently working on the full scale production of the B61-12 guided nuclear gravity bomb and 455-kiloton W88 Alteration (Alt) 370 warhead as part of the broader US nuclear weapons life-extension and modernization programs. The plant handles significant quantities of uranium, plutonium, and tritium, in addition to other non-radioactive toxic and explosive chemicals.
If a wildfire were to impact the site directly, the health and safety implications could be enormous.
“I don’t like to speculate in terms of worst-case scenarios,” Roth told the Bulletin. “The potential for danger if a fire ever broke out at a site with weapons usable nuclear material is quite great.”
“The danger from plutonium really comes from inhaling particulates,” Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, explained on a podcast in 2023. “So if powder is inhaled, or if somehow powder were to be dispersed through, say, a big fire or some kind of incident at the site, that would certainly pose a risk for surrounding communities.”
Up to 20,000 plutonium cores, or “pits,” from disassembled nuclear weapons can be stored on site. (The exact figure is classified, but experts contacted by the Bulletin said the current number of “surplus” plutonium pits already dismantled is likely to be around 19,000, plus an additional unknown number of backlog pits awaiting disassembly.)
But as Robert Alvarez wrote in the Bulletin in 2018, the plutonium is stored in facilities built over half a century ago that were never intended to indefinitely store nuclear explosives. After extreme rains flooded parts of the facility in 2010 and 2017, some of the containers began showing signs of corrosion.
A 2021 review by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board of the Pantex plant’s operations found that an increasing number of plutonium pits are stored in unsealed containers. These pits are either “recently removed from a weapon, planned to be used in an upcoming assembly or life extension program, or pending surveillance,” the board explained. The board previously recommended that these pits be repackaged into sealed insert containers for their safe long-term staging. But the plant personnel “stated it is only achieving approximately 10 percent of its annual pit repackaging goals, citing a lack of funding and priority.”…………………………………………………………………………..
A Department of Energy report published in April 2022 on fire protection at the Pantex, which identified several weaknesses within the plant, did not discuss risks from wildland fires.
“The event is obviously a stark reminder of the dangers of climate change on even high security nuclear weapons facilities,” said Kristensen.
But as other authors have previously argued in the Bulletin, climate change is a blind spot in US nuclear weapons policy. “All of these [nuclear] structures were built on the presumption of a stable planet. And our climate is changing very rapidly and presenting new extremes,” Alice Hill, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Bulletin in 2021……….. https://thebulletin.org/2024/02/texas-wildfires-force-major-nuclear-weapons-facility-to-briefly-pause-operations/
When The Imperial Media Report On An Israeli Massacre
there is no atrocity Israel could possibly commit where it wouldn’t frame itself as the victim.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 1, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/when-the-imperial-media-report-on?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=142205540&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In what many are now calling the Flour Massacre, at least 112 Gazans were killed and hundreds more injured after Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were waiting for food from much-needed aid trucks near Gaza City on Thursday.
Initial investigations by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor found that the crowd was fired upon by both IDF automatic rifles and by Israeli tanks, and that dozens of gunshot victims were hospitalized after the incident.
Israel’s version of events has of course changed over the course of the day as narrative managers figure out how best to frame publicly available information in a way that doesn’t harm Israel’s PR interests. Currently we’re at Israel admitting that IDF troops did indeed fire upon the crowd after previously denying this, but claiming that this isn’t what caused most of the the casualties, saying it was actually the Palestinians trampling each other in a human “stampede” which caused them harm. Essentially the current argument is “Yes we shot them, but that’s not why they died.”
The IDF claims Israeli troops only began firing on the Palestinians because the soldiers “felt threatened” by them, which goes to show that there is no atrocity Israel could possibly commit where it wouldn’t frame itself as the victim. Israel’s Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir took the opportunity to praise the IDF for heroically fighting off the dangerous Palestinians and to argue that the incident proves it’s too dangerous to keep allowing aid trucks into Gaza.
As terrible as the Israeli spin machine has been on this atrocity, the western imperial media have been even worse. The verbal gymnastics they’ve been performing in their headlines to avoid saying Israel massacred starving people who were waiting for food would be genuinely impressive if it wasn’t so ghoulish.
“As Hungry Gazans Crowd a Convoy, a Crush of Bodies, Israeli Gunshots and a Deadly Toll” reads one New York Times header, like the summary of an episode of a Netflix murder mystery show.
“Chaotic aid delivery turns deadly as Israeli, Gazan officials trade blame,” says an indecipherably cryptic headline from The Washington Post.
“Biden says Gaza food aid-related deaths complicate ceasefire talks,” says The Guardian. “Food aid-related deaths”? Seriously?
“More than 100 killed as crowd waits for aid, Hamas-run health ministry says,” reads a BBC headline. The UK’s state broadcaster is here using a tried and true tactic for casting doubt on death counts by deliberately associating them with Hamas, despite the fact that the Gaza health ministry’s death counts are considered so reliable that Israeli intelligence services use them in their own internal records.
“At least 100 killed and 700 injured in chaotic incident” says CNN, like it’s describing a frat party that got out of control.
“Carnage at Gaza food aid site amid Israeli gunfire” reads another CNN headline, as though the carnage and the Israeli gunfire are two unrelated phenomena which just unluckily occurred at around the same time.
CNN also repeatedly refers to the killings as “food aid deaths”, as though it’s the food aid that killed them and not the military of a very specific and very nameable state power.
(It’s probably worth noting at this point that CNN staff have been anonymously reporting through other outlets that there’s been a uniquely aggressive top-down push within the network to slant reporting heavily in favor of Israeli information interests, driven largely by the new CEO Mark Thompson.)
So that’s what happens when the imperial media report on an Israeli massacre, in case you were curious and haven’t been paying attention since October 7 or the decades which preceded it. The propaganda services of the western press operate in a way that is typically indistinguishable from the spinmeistering of officials in western governments, framing the western empire and its allies in a positive light and their enemies in a negative one.
This happens because the western mass media do not exist to report the news and give you information about what’s been going on in the world, but to manufacture consent for the political status quo and the globe-dominating power structure it supports. The only difference between our propaganda and the propaganda of a ruthless dictatorship is that the people who live under a dictatorship know they are being fed propaganda, whereas westerners are trained to believe they are ingesting impartial factual reporting.
The demolition of Gaza is alerting more and more westerners to the fact that this is happening, though, because the more blatant the atrocities the more ham-fisted the propaganda machine needs to be about running cover for them. It’s even opening eyes within the propaganda machine itself, which is why we’re seeing things like CNN staff blowing the whistle on their own CEO and New York Times staff telling The Intercept that their bosses committed extremely egregious journalistic malpractice in producing atrocity propaganda alleging mass rapes by Hamas on October 7.
The only good thing about what’s happening in Gaza is that it’s waking westerners up to the fact that everything they’ve been told about their society, their media and their world is a lie. Cracks are appearing in the illusion, and those of us who care about truth, peace and justice need to help draw attention to them. From there, real change becomes a genuine possibility.
TODAY, Nuclear power stopping climate change? IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Climate change makes the nuclear industry EVEN MORE DANGEROUS!
Bad enough that nuclear facilities run the risk of catastrophic nuclear meltdown. Admittedly, that is a risk for some, but not all nuclear facilities, and it is a very rare event.
But while the probability of such an event is rare, the consequences of such an event are severe. That is why nuclear facilities can’t get insurance
Bad enough that nuclear facilities, even when running well, release low level ionising radiation, which increases the risk of cancer for millions of people. Bad enough that nuclear workers have a higher risk and rate of cancer and other radiation-associated diseases.
Bad enough that the nuclear industry’s only real raison d’etre is to produce nuclear weapons, thus endangering the whole world.
But now we’ve got climate change.
This week’s news carries not only the wildfire danger to nuclear facilities, but also some of the drastic risks of sea level rise- Buried Nuclear Waste From the Cold War Could Resurface as Ice Sheets Melt. And that’s only one of the “water effects” of global heating.
On the one hand – there’s the danger of sea surges, rising sea levels, floods. On the other hand – the shortage of water when nuclear reactors require continuous huge amounts of water for cooling. ( Do they think of this as they bound into the Artificial Intelligence Age, with its plans for huge data farms powered by nuclear?)
It sure is time, as a global human community, that we really took global heating seriously.
It’s also time to put a stop to this nefarious nuclear industry – before climate change puts a stop to it, in a very nasty way.
Dutton wants a ‘mature debate’ about nuclear power. By the time we’ve had one, new plants will be too late to replace coal
If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, 29 Feb 24, https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time-weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513
If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long it’s small.
Newspoll this week suggests a majority of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A poll of Australian Financial Review readers last year told a similar story.
These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are generally costlier than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers.
The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.
Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the Voygr reactor, the intended buyers, a group of municipal power utilities, pulled the plug. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage.
Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (a big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time.
So why would Australians support nuclear?
It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:
There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power costs up to ten times as much as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:
There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?
It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.
Building nuclear takes a long time
When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.
As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has pointed out, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.
The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently in Western countries including the US, UK, France and Finland.
In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them.
If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.
It would take longer in Australia
Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.
There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.
Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.
Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s investing massively in solar power and battery storage.
Time to start work is running out
The Coalition began calling for a “mature debate” on nuclear immediately after losing office.
But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election.
Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.
In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.
‘I was a guinea pig during secret Christmas Island nuclear tests’
By Nicola Haseler & Lewis Adams. BBC News, Bedfordshire. 28 Feb 24
A former Royal Engineer who witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions as part of the UK’s nuclear tests said he was a “guinea pig”.
Brian Cantle, from Bedfordshire, was 21 when he was sent to Christmas Island as part of his national service in 1957.
He and the other soldiers were not told what they were going to do there – due to the covert nature of the programme.
Mr Cantle, now 87, has been awarded a Nuclear Test Medal for his work on the Pacific Ocean island.
The veteran, from Whipsnade, witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions during his 12 months on the island.
He was one of 22,000 British servicemen who participated in the British and United States’ nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965……………………………………………
On the days when bombs were tested, Mr Cantle said troops would have to put on brown overalls and face the other way to the bomb going off.
He added: “It was just a big flash and then we were told we could turn round and see it. It was an enormous explosion.”
‘We were guinea pigs’
In the decades that have followed the tests, calls have been made for the men who witnessed a nuclear test to receive an apology for the health risks they were exposed to.
“We were guinea pigs, we were just told what to do and did it,” Mr Cantle said………
The Grapple H-bomb nuclear test series was intended to show that the British had the technology to influence the Cold War, following the development of the atomic bomb by U.S. scientist Robert Oppenheimer.
The hydrogen bombs, which were much more powerful than atomic bombs, were detonated every three months……. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68415338
Texas: Disaster declaration issued and nuclear weapons plant shut down as wildfires spread
Sky News, Reemul Balla, 28 Feb 24
A disaster declaration has been issued for dozens of counties in northern Texas as raging wildfires forced evacuations in several towns and a nuclear weapons plant to shut down.
Republican governor Greg Abbott proclaimed 60 counties were in a state of disaster and called for extra emergency services to support local firefighters in tackling the blazes………………………………………………………………………….
Pantex nuclear facility paused operations until further notice due to an out-of-control fire approaching its Panhandle site near Amarillo.
Its 16,000-acre site is home to the plant that builds and disassembles America’s nuclear weapons.
“The fire near Pantex is not contained,” the company said. “Response efforts have shifted to evacuations.”
Pantex confirmed there was no fire on the site as emergency services continued to monitor the situation.
It added “all employees” had been accounted for and “non-essential personnel” were no longer on site………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://news.sky.com/story/texas-disaster-declaration-issued-and-nuclear-weapons-plant-shut-down-as-wildfires-spread-13082651
Release of fourth batch of Fukushima treated radioactive water begins
Japan Times, 28 Feb 24
The operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Wednesday started releasing a fourth batch of treated radioactive water into the sea, in what will be the last discharge for the fiscal year ending March.
As in previous rounds, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (Tepco) will discharge 7,800 metric tons of treated water over about 17 days, having confirmed that the radioactivity level of the latest batch of water meets the standards set by the government and the utility.
China, which opposes the water release, has banned Japanese seafood imports since the first discharge in late August. The two countries have engaged in informal discussions to resolve the matter, but no substantial progress has been made……………………….. more https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/02/28/japan/society/fukushima-radioactive-water-fourth-release/
Andrew Forrest attacks Coalition’s nuclear “bulldust” and betraying the bush
Rachel Williamson, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/andrew-forrest-attacks-coalitions-nuclear-bulldust-and-betraying-the-bush/—
Mining billionaire and green energy evangelist Dr Andrew Forrest has come out swinging against the deepening support for nuclear, and the aversion to wind and solar power within the National and Liberal parties in the name of farmers.
Forrest called on the federal government to speed up the transition away from carbon-intensive industries via three “simple” policies, and called on the government-in-waiting to stop spreading misinformation about renewables.
In the last fortnight opposition leader Peter Dutton doubled down on his calls for small modular nuclear reactors to be put in small Australian towns, saying he’d put one on the former Alcoa mine and power station site in the coastal Victorian town of Anglesea, while energy spokesman Ted O’Brien would put one in the Latrobe Valley.
Nationals leader David Littleproud also wants to stop the rollout of large scale renewables in Australia because rural areas are “saturated” with them, and wants to limit the energy transition to residential rooftop solar and arrays on commercial buildings.
Forrest pooh-poohed their understanding of the economics of major projects, saying the Coalition proposals would leave Australia “destitute” because of the enormously cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar.
“I ask you who claim to represent the bush now to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever,” Forrest said during a talk at the National Press Club.
” We can’t, so please stop betraying the bush. If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy, and that nuclear energy will be a fairy godmother, we will be worse off again.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic plucked out of thin air, bulldust nuclear policies, [from] politicians masquerading as leaders, helps no one. Politicians who do whatever they can to discourage votes are just politicians, they are not political leaders.”
Forrest cited in particular the misinformation that Australian farmers will have to give up huge tracts of land to enable the green energy transition (a meme advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs and repeated by the likes or rival iron ore billionaire Gina Rinehart and the Coalition.
Forrest also announced a fund to help with wind and solar farm decommissioning and calling on the federal government to better regulate renewables developers to ensure they set aside money for that purpose.
It’s easy with three “simple” policies
Forrest wants to see a test for all major projects that explicitly considers climate impacts, for the country to lean into least cost, firmed renewables, and for the carbon levy proposed by Rod Sims and Ross Garnaut on fossil fuel imports and exports.
“We can circuit break the cost of living crisis, turn around unemployment and play our full part in decarbonizing at least to 6 per cent of global emissions through new green export industries,” he said.
“Australia can generate not one but many of its own Australian Aramcos with the right policy settings. We can achieve all these with three simple policies.”
An impact test would create a climate trigger for every project requiring government approval, making carbon emissions and global warming automatically part of any environmental assessment.
US president Biden has already taken some action in this vein by pausing LNG export projects pending an assessment of the impacts on climate change.
Forrest claimed that it is the US’ “forward thinking climate strategy” and not the enormous funding on offer under the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is why Fortescue is building a liquid green hydrogen project in Phoenix, Arizona.
The second policy recommendation, leaning into renewables, repeats calls to roll out renewables faster in order to bring down the cost of electricity for Australians, while the third demanded an end to the “free ride” of fossil fuel companies via a carbon levy.
“The multi decadal polluting companies have exploited vicious lobbying for approvals so they can crowd out green energy, so they can prevent Australians from having the choice between cheaper green energy, which would destroy their livelihoods,” Forrest said.
“Let’s be clear for the sake of the visionless, a carbon solutions levy is not a carbon tax… it would only be applied to the 100-odd fossil fuel extraction sites in Australia and to importers, who are stopping us making our own energy. The beauty of this levy is that it does not penalise everyday Australians.
“It only penalises that the perpetrators of this crisis, the fossil fuel industry… Existing gas projects will continue to operate, they’ll just have to pay the levy. They’ll just have to pay their way. That’ll be new.”
He even called out taxpayer support for miners to use imported diesel, naming his own company Fortescue as one beneficiary.
“Their lobby groups quickly hide behind the Australian farm to defend the diesel fuel rebate. But they know that the vast proportion of the money goes to big mining and fossil fuel companies, not Australia’s farmers or fishermen.
” The ridiculousness of the rich crying out for more fossil fuel subsidies while denying climate change will surely go down as one of the most perversely selfish behaviours in Australian history.”
Fossil fuel subsidies increased to a record-breaking $57.1 billion in 2023, up from the $55.3 billion forecast in the 2022 budget, according to a report by The Australia Institute last year.
The Fuel Tax Act which subsidises the consumption of diesel, has cost over $95 billion in tax foregone to the Australian economy, via the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS), since it was legislated in 2006.
Andrew Forrest and Peter Dutton are on a collision course over Nuclear Power
National Times 26 Feb 24
Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest labels Coalition push for nuclear energy ‘bulldust’ and a ‘new lie’ ( Paul Karp Chief political correspondent for The Guardian)
Mining billionaire says cost of nuclear will be four to five times that of renewables and opposition’s policy is ‘an excuse for doing nothing’
The mining billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has labelled the Coalition’s push for nuclear energy “bulldust” and a “new lie” that would delay the clean energy transition and harm regional Australia.
The executive chair and founder of mining company Fortescue and the renewable energy investor Tattarang on Monday urged the opposition to stop advocating expensive and unfeasible alternatives to renewables.
The Coalition is yet to produce a costed energy policy, despite arguing to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear energy and recent comments from the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, that expanded rooftop solar could be rolled out instead of large-scale renewables.
The Liberals and Nationals have complained that large-scale renewables and transmission projects will ruin agricultural land, despite experts debunking the extent of this claimed impact.
Forrest told the National Press Club that “even the fossil fuel industry has taken responsibility” for global heating, and that “doing nothing” is not an option, with Australia to face tariffs from the European Union if it doesn’t reduce emissions.
Forrest told politicians who “claim to represent the bush” – a reference to the Nationals – to “stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels for ever … We can’t. So, please stop betraying the bush.”
“If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy and that nuclear energy will be our fairy godmother, we will be worse off again,” he said.
Forrest said it was “hopeless” that politicians are asking Australians “to wait for new technology in 20 years’ time that may never happen”.
“It’s just an excuse for doing nothing. This is the straight admission that fossil fuels have to go, but their solutions risk leaving us destitute.”
According to energy department estimates for the Albanese government, replacing Australia’s coal power plants with nuclear would cost $387bn.
Forrest said he had “done the numbers” and nuclear will cost four to five times more than renewables, which can reduce emissions within a few years.
“A leader will remind the farming community offline that global warming is real and that all their customers are taking it very seriously,” he said.
“Instead of knocking a slow-moving, gracious wind turbine, try a nuclear power plant or a belching coal plant next door.
“The fact that we can feel climate change already despite the ocean soaking up most of out heat-generated emissions means Australia has finally run out of time.
“We get the next few years wrong and Australia’s economy and the rest of us cook. We get it right, and Australia enjoys decades of economic growth, full employment and reinvigoration of its natural environment.”
Forrest backed the proposal for a carbon solutions levy to raise $100bn, advanced by Ross Garnaut, a leading economist during the Hawke government, and Rod Sims, a former head of the competition watchdog.
Forrest also called for a green hydrogen tax credit to grow the industry, on top of the $2bn hydrogen head start fund, and a climate trigger to block approval of major projects if they contribute to global heating.
Forrest announced that Squadron, his renewable energy venture, will create an industry fund for decommissioning wind turbines so landowners can have “peace of mind” that the landscape will not be harmed if turbines are not renewed and extended.
Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens environment spokesperson, said that “business leaders like Forrest can see that, for the sake of our environment and economy, we need to stop expanding fossil fuels”.
“Forrest backed the growing call for a climate trigger in environment law and I hope that Labor were listening.”
Earlier on Monday the shadow energy and climate change minister, Ted O’Brien, told reporters in Canberra there was “no doubt that the experts are advising us that one of the best places to locate zero-emissions nuclear reactors would be where coal plants are retired”.
O’Brien accused Labor of “steamrolling regional communities” to build renewables, but could not say what the Coalition would do if communities around existing coal power stations objected to nuclear power.
O’Brien was unable to say how much nuclear power would cost, responding that “a lot of questions that can only be answered once we release our policy”.
“We have been formulating an all-of-the-above [technologies], balanced policy for Australia’s future energy mix.”
No nuclear option for $275m green-manufacturing and innovation grants
Sam McKeith, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/green-manufacturing-gets-275m-boost-with-launch-of-innovation-grant-scheme/
Grants from a NSW $275 million green manufacturing fund will not go towards nuclear projects as the state says the technology is not part of its plans to reach net-zero emissions.
Under the Net Zero Manufacturing Initiative program, announced on Monday, businesses can access grants for manufacture of renewable energy systems, low-carbon products and clean-technology innovation.
The program is part of the state’s legislated pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 50 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 and hit net zero by 2050.
But Climate Change Minister Penny Sharpe ruled out any grants going to projects such as the development of small modular nuclear reactors, despite a Newspoll on Monday showing two-thirds of younger Australians backed the technology.
“We’re looking at, even if you wanted to start today … a 14-year horizon to get it in the ground, which we don’t actually have,” she told reporters.
“The second point that I make is that nuclear energy is 350 per cent more expensive than renewables.”
Premier Chris Minns said the grants would bolster local manufacturing in the renewable and clean-technology industries, especially among small and medium-sized firms.
“The thing I like about this so much is that it enhances what is taking place in our research universities in the state as it currently stands,” he said.
The initiative will focus on lab-proven tech and the build of “market-ready products” ready to be scaled up and rolled out in NSW, the government says.
It comes as the state scrambles to replace ageing coal power stations with renewable energy to meet its emission targets, while also trying to keep a lid on power prices and maintain capacity.
The Cost of Nuclear War in Space
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the billions of dollars pouring into the space economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/business/dealbook/the-cost-of-nuclear-war-in-space.html By Ephrat Livni and Vivienne Walt
Just before the Russian-Ukrainian war reached its two-year milestone today, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Russia might aim a nuclear weapon at an unusual target: not any place on Earth, but satellites orbiting in space.
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the space economy — and the one on the ground. There is a little-known but fast-growing industry that insures satellites, but it doesn’t provide insurance against nuclear arms.
What’s at stake: hundreds of billions (and probably trillions) of dollars when including the services that rely on satellites, according to David Wade, an underwriter at the Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, which insures satellites for Lloyd’s.
Of more than 8,000 satellites in orbit, thousands belong to private companies, according to Orbiting Now, a site that compiles real-time satellite tracking data from NASA and other sources. The Russian weapon is said to be designed to target satellites in low Earth orbit, where most commercial satellites operate.
SpaceX’s Starlink dominates the space-based internet services industry, and Amazon also has big aspirations in space. But the sharp drop in launch costs in recent years — driven largely by SpaceX — has made entry possible for many smaller players, leading to a satellite-business frenzy that prompted the Federal Communications Commission to open a Space Bureau last year.
Wade estimated the total value of all insured satellites in orbit at $25 billion. That doesn’t include the revenue they generate. The Satellite Industry Association estimated revenues for nongovernmental satellite services at $113 billion in 2022.
Investment in the space economy is increasing quickly. Space activity could total $620 billion this year, according to the most recently available estimate. That’s up from $545 billion in 2022, according to an estimate from the Space Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes space education and enterprise.
Aspirations for the space economy include mining for rare minerals and water, tourism, communications, and data transfer infrastructure. On Thursday, a lunar lander from Intuitive Machines, traveling on a SpaceX rocket, became the first private craft to land on the moon, which some are hopeful leads to mining for water that could be used to make fuel for more distant industrial missions.
A space weapon would cast a pall across other businesses, too. Industries from agriculture to tech depend on satellites, and sectors like shipping, transport, banking and supply chain management rely on GPS, which uses satellites. The threat would also have “a depressive effect” on space company valuations broadly, said Donald Moore, C.E.O. of the Space Finance Corporation and a space policy lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School.
The new threat could also put a dent in the U.S. government’s plans to rely on private players just as the Department of Defense is expected to release details of a new strategy to integrate commercial satellites in national security, noted Brian Weeden, the chief program officer for the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that works on space policy.
Some are skeptical of the risk. The precise effects would depend on unknowns about the weapon, company contingency planning and other factors. “We could still communicate,” said Henry Hertzfeld, a space policy professor at George Washington University and former chief economist at NASA. “We still have some landlines,” he added, speaking from his office phone. And he doubts that Russia will introduce this menace, as it would also endanger its space activities. Notably, it would also violate an international space treaty.
But the risk is not covered by insurance. “Exclusions for acts of war, antisatellite devices and nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination (except for radiation naturally occurring in the space environment) are typically listed in a space insurance policy,” Wade said in an email.
The U.S. space model depends heavily on commercialization, noted Russell Sawyer, a space insurance broker at Lockton in London. The government has pushed risk out onto private companies, he said, and this trend could shift if this nuclear threat really is serious: “The government would be needed.” — Ephrat Livni
Biden administration restores Trump-rescinded policy on illegitimacy of Israeli settlements
BY MATTHEW LEE, February 24, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday restored a U.S. legal finding dating back nearly 50 years that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are “illegitimate” under international law.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. believes settlements are inconsistent with Israel’s obligations, reversing a determination made by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, in the Biden administration’s latest shift away from the pro-Israel policies pursued by former President Donald Trump.
Blinken’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about an announcement that Israel would build more than 3,300 new homes in West Bank settlements as a riposte to a fatal Palestinian shooting attack.
It wasn’t clear why Blinken chose this moment, more than three years into his tenure, to reverse Pompeo’s decision. But it came at a time of growing U.S.-Israeli tensions over the war in Gaza, with the latest settlement announcement only adding to the strain. It also came as the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice, is holding hearings into the legality of the Israeli occupation.
Biden administration officials did not cast Blinken’s comments as a reversal — but only because they claim Pompeo’s determination was never issued formally. Biden administration lawyers concluded Pompeo’s determination was merely his opinion and not legally binding, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.
But formally issued or not, Pompeo’s announcement in November 2019 was widely accepted as U.S. policy and had not been publicly repudiated until Blinken spoke on Friday.
Speaking in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires, Blinken said the U.S. was “disappointed” to learn of the new settlement plan announced by Israel’s far-right firebrand finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, after three Palestinian gunmen opened fire on cars near the Maale Adumim settlement, killing one Israeli and wounding five.
Blinken condemned the attack but said the U.S. is opposed to settlement expansion and made clear that Washington would once again abide by the Carter administration-era legal finding that determined settlements were not consistent with international law.
“It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under Republican and Democratic administrations alike that new settlements are counter-productive to reaching an enduring peace,” he said in his news conference with Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino.
“They’re also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion and in our judgment this only weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, Israel’s security,” Blinken said……………………………….. more https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-illegitimate-palestine-biden-rescind-law-0bed7cf5d6f98012193e9f5075eb719a
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 