Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

TODAY. Anthony Blinken would get into bed with the devil, if it meant lucrative sales of USA weapons and nukes to Hell

One cannot help but admire the frantic peregrinations of Antony Blinken all around the world, in pursuit of American weapons companies’ interest, as well as doing the smarmy cover-up for USA’s support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The guy has amazing energy and zeal. Not sure about integrity.

However, this is all symptomatic of American prevailing culture. The Biden administration does seem hell-bent on backing Israel – even though the horror of the atrocity in Gaza is visible to the world. Even though the world’s Jews now fear an awful backlash, and the rise of nasty anti-semitism.

But the USA blunders on. The war in Ukraine drags on, and the weapons flow no doubt will continue there. (The U.S. Republicans will surely eventually find a way to back the provision of more weapons to UKraine). The weapons flow continues to Israel, despite Biden’s pious proclamations about peace.

I’m forever reading in the U.S. press about other countries clamouring to buy USA nuclear technology – plans to sell small and large nuclear reactors to Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Ukraine, Kenya, Ghana, and of course, the big nuclear submarine coup sale to Australia ………………

I also read – what I find rather nauseous – stuff about how the USA is “helping” the people of Gaza – compassionate aid, plans for when Israel is finally completely victorious, and so on.

But it was the BBC’s story today that really impressed me: Blinken visits Middle East to discuss Gaza post-war plan.

“The major Arab sponsor Saudi Arabia would normalise relations with Israel in return for access to advanced US weapons and an American-backed civilian nuclear power programme.“

I momentarily lack the energy to write about the USA’s new best friend – Saudi Arabia, (itself a buyer of USA arms), about the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, about the discrimination against women, and Saudi Arabia’s whole theocratic suppression of human rights.

But all is forgiven, if we can make money selling weapons, and if that means some delicate diplomatic acrobatics what better acrobat than Antony Blinken?

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK and Australia set to elevate defence relationship to NATO level with new ‘status of forces’ agreement

ABC News, by Defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 21 Mar 24

  • In short: UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps are in Australia to discuss efforts to help Ukraine against Russia’s invasion and the AUKUS partnership to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.
  • It’s expected the two parties will sign a new “status of forces” agreement, which establishes the framework under which military personnel can operate in a foreign country.
  • What’s next? The first Australian-built submarine is scheduled to arrive in the early 2040s.

……………………………………… During formal meetings in Canberra on Thursday, and then at AUKMIN in Adelaide on Friday, discussions are expected to focus on efforts to help Ukraine against Russia’s invasion and the AUKUS partnership to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

“If the United Kingdom signs a ‘Status of Forces’ agreement with Australia it will be the first such arrangement it has done so with any country outside NATO,” an official familiar with AUKMIN planning told the ABC, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, is either a multilateral or bilateral agreement and establishes the framework under which military personnel can operate in a foreign country.

It can also shape how domestic laws of that jurisdiction apply towards them while posted there.

…………………….The Australian and British ministers will head to Adelaide late Thursday ahead of a “significant” announcement on sovereign submarine shipbuilding in Adelaide.

British defence giant BAE Systems, which is currently constructing Australia’s Hunter-class frigates, is widely anticipated to be announced as the main builder for the new SSN-AUKUS submarines to be assembled in Adelaide.

BAE Systems currently builds the Royal Navy’s submarines in northern England and already has a considerable presence in Adelaide.

The first Australian-built submarine is scheduled to arrive in the early 2040s.

Following the submarine announcement, all four ministers will go behind closed doors for their AUKMIN talks, before a joint press conference in the afternoon. ….  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-21/uk-and-australian-to-strengthen-military-ties/103613164
—

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Glorious new financial jargon from the nuclear lobby – the “International Bank for Nuclear Infrastructure (IBNI)”

International Bank for Nuclear Infrastructure (IBNI) will become the ‘Gold Standard’ of nuclear finance.

the IBNI will have an estimated 30+ sovereign governmental member shareholders, each with aligned views on nuclear energy and other global policy objectives. …….. IBNI – as a specialised ‘global nuclear infrastructure bank’ – will have a global mandate to finance and support nuclear sector projects, programmes and industries in all its member countries .

where the bank aims to achieve the most significant global impacts will be in catalysing a highly significant ‘capital multiplier impact’, which represents the total quantum of global financial markets capital mobilised relative to each dollar of public investment (by sovereign shareholder member states) in the bank.

IBNI will become the ‘Gold Standard’ of nuclear finance.

Why nuclear energy needs exclusive global multilateral infrastructure bank By Daniel Dean, 18 Mar 2024  https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/why-nuclear-energy-needs-exclusive-global-multilateral-infrastructure-bank/—

The mobilisation of trillions of dollars of global capital necessary for the nuclear sector to scale in the near-term can be supported by a new kind of financial institution – an international multilateral infrastructure bank focused exclusively on nuclear energy, writes Daniel Dean, IBNI-IO SAG chairman.

Attaining current policy objectives, including 2050 Net Zero, will require global nuclear technologies to scale to an unprecedented magnitude and at breakneck speed.

COMMENT on Lie number 1. Attaining 2050 Net Zero may well be impossible anyway, but there is zero likelihood of nuclear power to have anything meaningful to do with it, other than to slow down real solutions – energy conservation and renewable energy .

This historically unmatched scaling will also require the very rapid mobilisation of multiple trillions of dollars of capital into the sector.quick online loans. Existing nuclear project delivery and financing mechanisms rely mainly on governmental support and attract very limited risk appetite from the global financial markets. Such existing models will be insufficient for catalyzing the very significant quanta of capital necessary required to enable nuclear to scale as quickly as possible to achieve multiple 100s of GW’s of additional global nuclear generation capacity. If the world is going to achieve its ambitious climate, clean energy, energy transition and energy security goals in this short period of time, there simply needs to be a fundamental change in the approach toward financing nuclear infrastructure.

Scaling of the nuclear sector faces numerous and multidimensional impediments. These interrelated impediments span a broad spectrum and include among others: public policy; regulatory, markets and ESG frameworks; social license; geopolitical; commercial and risk allocation models; and perhaps most importantly, affordability and accessibility. Each of the nuclear sector’s impediments is manifested in the form of financial risk. Clearly, the nuclear industry will need to do its part through increased on-time and on-budget performance and other progressive improvements, alongside the key roles of governments, owner-operators, end-users/ratepayers and all other stakeholder groups that will each need to do their part. However, the ‘sum of these parts’ (e.g. what each stakeholder can individually do) does not add up to a solution that will enable nuclear to scale.

The mobilisation of the necessary capital required for nuclear to scale, requires formulation of systemic and multidimensional risk mitigation solutions. The nuclear sector is currently caught in a ‘vicious circle’, whereby nuclear cannot and will not scale without access to a ‘runway’ of cost-efficient capital and such capital is not accessible unless nuclear becomes sufficiently de-risked due to scaling. Nuclear’s ‘vicious circle’ needs to be very rapidly transformed into a ‘virtuous circle’, which will require immediate risk mitigation solutions and unlocking capital flows well before scaling can begin.

From a financial risk management perspective, the nuclear sector poses excessive financial risk as it is measured in the form of the Value at Risk (“VaR”) metric. From a financier’s perspective, VaR can be described simply as: the amount of at-risk capital deployed and the probability of loss.

Because nuclear sector financings are both highly capital intensive and the real and perceived risks of the sector are viewed to be high, it is intuitive that the nuclear sector’s VaR profiles currently compare unfavourably against many other alternative asset classes.

Well that one sure is true!

A new nuclear investor

The proposed International Bank for Nuclear Infrastructure (IBNI) will be a new multilateral nuclear infrastructure bank that will be focused on enabling nuclear technology to rapidly scale and become both highly affordable and accessible within all its member countries, globally. Importantly, IBNI will finance and support both the production and supply chain (supply side) as well as the customer side (demand side) of the nuclear sector in member countries ranging from developing countries to highly developed ‘nuclear mature’ countries. The bank will act as the global early and long-term patient capital provider and it will finance and support all areas of the nuclear value spectrum on a technology-, vendor-, and country-neutral basis including new-build (Gen. III/ III+, Gen IV and future fusion, other); life-extensions and re-starts; refinancing and restructurings; fuel cycle (mining through repository); production and supply chains; nuclear infrastructure; and decommissioning and nuclear waste management projects, programs and industries.

IBNI will be capitalised, governed and operated using models similar to those that have been proven mission-successful by the world’s major global multilateral banks, which have been in existence for many decades. Those models include the World Bank Group (WBG); the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In other words, the IBNI will have an estimated 30+ sovereign governmental member shareholders, each with aligned views on nuclear energy and other global policy objectives. Whereas those existing ‘multilateral development banks’ like the WBG, EBRD and ADB are generally focused on missions such as economic development and poverty eradication (and generally, within defined geographies, developmental and/or income strata), IBNI – as a specialised ‘global nuclear infrastructure bank’ – will have a global mandate to finance and support nuclear sector projects, programmes and industries in all its member countries (not limited to geography, developmental status or income level). The existing multilateral banks are currently not providing any material support for the nuclear sector. While the change in longstanding policies of these institutions toward nuclear is highly encouraged and would be complimentary (not competitive), these institutions are ill-equipped to be seen as a substitute for IBNI’s proposed role as the global nuclear financing institution.

On the one hand, the bank will use its own capital to directly co-finance and support qualified nuclear projects based on the principle of ‘additionality’ (i.e. ‘bridging gaps’ throughout the nuclear value spectrum where existing public and private funding and financing are not adequately accessible on a cost-efficient basis). It is anticipated that the bank’s main commercial operating arm, the IBNI Ordinary Operations Fund will be a self-sustaining entity that will issue long-term debt in the global ‘sovereign and supranational bond markets’. Based on the strong shareholder liquidity and support offered by the bank’s shareholders, it is envisaged that the fund will achieve ‘triple-A’ credit ratings or the highest credit quality that will allow IBNI to borrow funds at the lowest cost and in turn, pass along lowest cost financing for the benefit of the bank’s programme participants. Certainly, accessing least-cost capital is one critical element that will drive down nuclear generation costs and enable nuclear technologies to achieve affordability targets, which are critical for enabling nuclear to scale.

On the other hand, and most importantly, where the bank aims to achieve the most significant global impacts will be in catalysing a highly significant ‘capital multiplier impact’, which represents the total quantum of global financial markets capital mobilised relative to each dollar of public investment (by sovereign shareholder member states) in the bank. IBNI’s advisory team projects that the bank should reasonably target a ‘capital multiplier impact’ of more than 100x, from the bank’s targeted establishment date in 2024/25 through 2050. Accordingly, the potential for the highly significant ‘capital multiplier impact’ effect targeted by IBNI will provide the highest value for money for each public dollar invested. Thus, a comparative investment in the bank would represent the most efficient means of achieving both national and global policy objectives, relative to strictly inward investments in a countries own nuclear sector’s domestic and bilateral initiatives (which the bank would not compete with).

COMMENT: utterly convincing? Not really.

Managing nuclear risk

In order to accomplish the bank’s core mission of scaling nuclear to attain a sustainable 2050 Net Zero World, IBNI will need to enable multidimensional risk mitigation solutions that will rapidly and sufficiently reduce nuclear sector VaR profiles to levels that become acceptable and in line with other similar infrastructure asset classes.

IBNI will implement programmes and offer customised financial product lines that will be engineered to systemically and progressively ‘flatten’ the VaR curves all across the nuclear sector. This ambition goes well beyond the necessary goal of developing market confidence through the necessary demonstration of global fleet deployments of serialised, repeatable, successful nuclear projects delivered within schedule and budget. IBNI will also serve as a global aggregator of an adopted set of universal nuclear-specific standards and criteria and the bank will aim to become a global institutional repository of nuclear financing expertise, which will become relied upon by investors, lenders and financing institutions for their own evaluation of nuclear sector financing transactions. Borrowing from the World Bank’s phraseology, IBNI will become the ‘Gold Standard’ of nuclear finance. While currently there are discrete elements of nuclear-specific financing standards and expertise available (from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, and Equator Principles IV, International Finance Corporation Standards, for example), there is, by no means, the necessary comprehensive set of nuclear-specific financing standards and criteria, such as those that pertain to every other asset class which are available from the existing major multilateral financing institutions like the World Bank. Nuclear is a very unique asset class that deserves its own global financial institution that would have deep expertise within the sector and an understanding of the unique multidimensional risk elements of nuclear finance. Such an institution would be able to adopt a set of standards and criteria specific to these unique elements.

Without an IBNI, and despite the valiant combined efforts of individual governments, sporadic international cooperation and the nuclear industry itself, the nuclear sector’s ability to scale will most likely continue to be constrained and the ‘vicious circle’ will persist unbroken.

COMMENT. Yes – agreed – the nuclear sector’s ability to scale will most likely continue to be constrained and the ‘vicious circle’ will persist

IBNI offers a unique ‘whole of the world’ proposition that will enable the global nuclear sector to rapidly and efficiently break the ‘vicious circle’ that persistently plagues the sector. Only through a global and systemic approach toward mitigating nuclear’s multidimensional risk elements and sufficiently ‘flattening’ the nuclear sector’s VaR curves can the sector’s ‘vicious circle’ be transformed into a ‘virtuous circle’. IBNI offers this unique global risk mitigation solution which will enable the mobilisation of trillions of dollars of global capital necessary for the nuclear sector to scale in the near term.

This article first appeared in Nuclear Engineering International magazine.

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Armed by Washington, Israel Trashes the Genocide Convention

Stop treating Gaza like a natural disaster.

SCHEERPOST, By Stan Cox and Priti Gulati Cox / TomDispatch 20 Mar 24

It’s been almost two months since the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to stop killing Gazans and destroying their means of subsistence. So let’s look back and ask (1) how Israel has responded to its “orders,” and (2) how hard the Biden administration has pushed Israel to abide by those orders. Spoiler alert: the short answers are (1) not well and (2) not very.

The American government has provided most of the armaments and targeting technologies being used to kill Gazans by the thousands while turning many of the rest of them into refugees by destroying their homes, offices, schools, and hospitals. Nor did the Biden administration threaten to withdraw that support when Israel blocked shipments of crucial food and fuel to the 25-mile-long Gaza Strip. It also keeps vetoing U.N. Security Council resolutions that would hold Israel accountable. And President Biden, despite an increasing amount of rhetorical shuffling, continues to back Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), even though they have ignored the International Court’s orders and continue committing atrocities.

Flouting the Order to Stop the Killing

On January 26th, the International Court of Justice handed down a ruling in a case brought by the Republic of South Africa accusing Israel of genocide. It ordered that Israel must “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described” in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The court’s first order prohibited “killing members” of the Palestinian population or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” to them. How did Israel respond? Consider that, between late December 2023 and January 21st of this year, the IDF had killed about 5,000 Palestinians, already pushing the death toll in the Gaza Strip past 25,000. The court’s order, issued days later, would have essentially zero effect. Another 5,000-plus Palestinians would be killed by late February, raising the death toll to more than 30,000.

During the month after the ruling, Israeli troops repeatedly killed or injured civilians fleeing to, or taking shelter in, areas the IDF had advertised as “safe zones.” Typically, when, on February 12th, Israeli aircraft attacked 14 homes and three mosques in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, killing 67 Palestinians, some of the survivors told reporters that they’d been inside tents in a refugee camp. Similarly, on February 22nd, Israeli warplanes struck a residential area in central Gaza, killing 40 civilians, mostly women and children, and wounding more than 100.

Worse yet, the Biden administration has enabled that ongoing killing spree by approving 100 separate military sales to Israel since the conflict began in October. As a former administration official told the Washington Post, “That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time, which really strongly suggests that the Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support.”

In other words, the backbone of the war on Gaza comes with a label: “Made in USA.” In the decade leading up to October 7th, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has reported, two-thirds of Israel’s arms imports came from the United States. (From 1950 to 2020, the U.S. share was a whopping 83%!)

In just the first couple of months of the war, the Biden administration sent 230 cargo planes and 20 ships full of military goods to Israel, a trove that included 100 BLU-109 bombs (2,000-pounders designed to penetrate hardened structures before exploding), 5,400 MK84 and 5,000 MK82 bunker-busters, 1,000 GBU-39 bombs, 3,000 JDAM bomb-guidance kits, and 200 “kamikaze drones.”

Such powerful bombs, reported Al Jazeera, “have been used in some of the deadliest Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, including a strike that leveled an apartment block in the Jabalia refugee camp, killing more than 100 people.” And yes, such bunker-busters were widely used in the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in places as densely populated as Gaza’s cities. Israeli sources tried to justify that particular death toll by insisting it was necessary to kill one of Hamas’s leaders. If so, we’re talking about a 100-to-1 ratio, or a kind of collective punishment being supported by our tax dollars………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/20/armed-by-washington-israel-trashes-the-genocide-convention/

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. In talking about nuclear matters, why is money the only game in town?

I’m constantly reading nuclear news items. And yes, I am getting bored with all the money stuff. I know it’s important. I know that money is very very important, especially these days with the cost of living on everyone’s mind.(Well, perhaps not the 1% – the very wealthy)

It must be so important. There’s America’s small nuclear reactor dream gone bung, because NuScale’s smrs cost too much. There are the bankruptcies Westinghouse- and those near to bankruptcy – Toshiba, EDF, and the companies with a chequered past e,g.- SNC-Lavalin, Areva (reborn as Orano),

There are the financial contortions going on in Britain, with its very dodgy “Great British Nuclear”. The USA agonising over the ginormous costs of the still uncompleted Vogtle NPP. And France with Macron’s delusional scheme for many big and small reactors to be built very fast, -while they can’t afford to fix up, or to close down, their existing fleet of aging reactors.

There are the “minor” countries also agonising over how to pay for their nuclear schemes – Indonesia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Kenya, Ghana………

But of course, Russia China, North Korea, are fine with nuclear economics – or so I’m told by some Australian nuclear zealots who are NRB (- not real bright). Yeah well, if you need a dictatorship to make nuclear power economic, I guess that’s the way to go. (But are we sure it’s all that good in those countries, anyway?)

But anyway, yes, I’m wondering why the media doesn’t seems to be fussing about the radioactive pollution of our planet, and the risks to health, especially of pregnant women, children, and everybody. Big accidents are rare – but they do happen , smaller accidents happen, too. And the connection with weapons, war, the nightmare possibility of omnicide – that’s a bit of a worry too. Of course indigenous people and those silly anti-nuclear activists make a fuss, but they don’t count, do they?

I guess it is all symptomatic of our era, our prevailing culture, the worship of not just profit, but ever-increasing profit.

Still, perhaps I should not complain. Worrying about money might be the only thing saving us from nuclear follies. And I note that when they do their earnest costing of nuclear power – they talk only about building costs and electricity prices – and it’s already too expensive! What if they also counted the cost of nuclear waste disposal, and a thousand years of securing it?

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chief scientist backs renewables, calls nuclear power ‘expensive’

Q+A / By Jason Whittaker 18 Mar 24

  • In short: Chief Scientist Cathy Foley says nuclear energy is “expensive” and the energy debate must be guided by research.
  • Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised the CSIRO, which says renewables like solar and wind are cheaper.
  • What’s next? Retired Major General Gus McLachlan says the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines is a test of leadership.

Australia’s chief scientist has backed a renewables-led path to net zero emissions over the “expensive technology” of nuclear energy.

After the federal opposition puts nuclear-fired power generation back on the national agenda, Cathy Foley told Q+A that any assessment of energy sources should be guided by evidence.

“If you look at the reports that have been done, it’s [nuclear power] an expensive technology and it’s one where it would take some time to build up the capability to do that in Australia,” Dr Foley said.

“As chief scientist, it’s not for me to actually say what the government should do.

“What we should be doing is looking at the evidence and the information that is available and making sure that we make good decisions based on all the different things we have to take into account.”

Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton attacked research from the CSIRO on the higher cost of nuclear power over renewables such as solar and wind, prompting a public defence from the nation’s leading science institution.

“It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work,” Mr Dutton said on Friday, calling the research “discredited”.

In response, CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton said in a statement: “I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism.”

Dr Foley spent 15 years at the CSIRO before becoming the nation’s chief scientist.

Asked by Q+A host Patricia Karvelas if nuclear power should be on the table, she said: “I don’t think we should be making that decision without getting the information that’s needed.”

“So at the moment the plan is to be able to get to zero emissions using renewables and batteries …

“Australia has got a fantastic situation where we have so much energy from wind and solar that we should be making the most of that.

“We have the potential to have renewables based on solar panels and wind and batteries and that is the pathway that the government has been putting forward and is on a plan to get there by getting to zero emissions.”

The power of ‘little suns’

Leading American physicist Bryan Greene said nuclear is a “wonderful energy source” — but it’s the next generation of the technology (nuclear fusion) that offers the most promise.

“Once that is on the table, everything changes,” the Columbia University professor told Q+A.

“That will be the approach that will take over, say, from 2050 or 2060 onwards.”

Current nuclear fission technology — splitting large atoms to generate energy — leaves radioactive waste and the danger of reactor meltdowns……………………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/chief-scientist-cathy-foley-nuclear-expensive-backs-renewables/103602312

March 20, 2024 Posted by | business | Leave a comment

Dutton’s bid for nuclear power: hoax or reckless endangerment?

“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”

In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.

But beyond the tactics of Labor-baiting and the politics of diversion ……. lurks the original – and only – economic rationale of nuclear power – as an adjunct to a nuclear arms industry.

March 18, 2024, by: David Tyler https://theaimn.com/duttons-nuclear-dream-is-a-dead-cat-on-the-table-to-distract-us-from-his-dunkley-debacle/

It’s incredible. Such is our love-in with Peter “Junkyard” Dutton, our former Border Overlord, who used to play the bad cop dispensing rough justice–doing whatever it took to keep us safe-that today, he’s being cheered by most of the press gallery for reckless endangerment in his punt on nuclear energy.

Is it just to please his sponsor, Gina Rinehart and other richly attractive mining oligarchs who will make a few extra billion out of delaying the end of coal-fired power generation? Even if they do hasten the end of the world, they do get to star in their own perverted, planet-destroying mother of all snuff movies?

Or… brace yourself- does “Dutts” blunt truth and other fiction’s pin up boy-harbour


And what a boon for democracy. Voters choose between the pro-mining, colliery-opening, Labor Party and the pro-mining right-wing rump of a moribund Liberal Party, only in the race because of its secret agreement with the National Party, a mob of pro-mining, faux populists who pose as saviours of The Bush and its battlers, such as Riverview Old Boy, Barnaby Thomas Gerald Joyce’s Weatherboard Nine.

Or Bob Katter’s family which includes the incredibly successful arms manufacturer, son-in-law Rob Nioa.

ulterior motives?

Of course. A whiff of Emu Field, Montebello and Maralinga on the campaign trail helps with Coalition branding and product differentiation. “I’m with nuclear, stupid” would be a killer of an election slogan. Albo and Dutts could get together to whip up a referendum for the next federal democracy sausage BBQ. Besides, no-one in the nuclear power side hustle isn’t also itching to develop his or her own nuclear weapon cycle. Nuclear energy only makes sense if you are a nuclear arms manufacturer.

Nuclear is also a feint in the climate wars. Let’s talk tactics. Team Dutton can say that Labor is on the right track but has “no credible pathway” unless you have nuclear energy in the brew, firming up your mix. The Liberal Party plays the front end of the Coalition panto horse; the Nationals bring up the rear.

And just as he did after defeat in Aston, Dutton dashes into nuclear after his Dunkley debacle. Note he’s now a big reactor man, having got the email that small modular reactors are scarce as rocking-horse manure. It’s a revolutionary turn. A year or so ago, Dutts opposed, “the establishment of big nuclear facilities”. But being a conservative in Australian politics means, you don’t have to explain or apologise.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Nor do you have to heed our scientists. “… the CSIRO has made clear, large reactors are too large for our small grids, and small reactors are still unproven commercially.”

Smear them. Say it’s a discredited study.


Sean Kelly sees Dutton’s pro-nuclear vision as a way of buying unity. Nobody on Dutton’s team thinks it’s a real policy, he claims, and it’s a long-term fantasy, so they won’t buck Dutton’s wilful stupidity. He’s sniping at CSIRO, too, which always wins friends amongst a growing anti-science brigade, a resource tapped into shamelessly by such figures as, “planter saint”, Barnaby Joyce; off his nut about the “green peril”. The former deputy PM also calls windmills, “filth” whilst renewable energy is a “swindle”.

The Coalition attack on CSIRO parallels its harassment of a now cowed ABC, on which it inflicted a barrage of criticism, funding cuts and Morrison’s captain’s pick of Ita Buttrose as chair. Cutbacks in the CSIRO have also taken their toll but their CEO, Professor Doug Hilton publicly rebukes Dutton.

“For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.”

Kelly might add that the Coalition is riven by at least ten factions, post-Morrison, and has rivals hatching plots of helping their leader by taking his job away from him. One of these, with some experience of edged weapons, is former SAS Patrol Commander, Captain Andrew Hastie who must have been cheered when in 2017 the AFP cleared of war crimes, an SAS soldier who cut the hands off two suspected Taliban fighters. Handy Andy was in command of some other soldiers at the scene. Hastie’s mentor is none other than party kingmaker, Big Mining Shill and fellow happy clapper, the Nationals’ John Anderson.

A spill now could avoid some bloodletting in the next federal election, a surgical strike, perhaps.

Rex Patrick sees Peter Dutton’s move as a “nasty” political wedge given that the federal Labor government has already signed us on to Morrison’s AUKUS which guarantees a small modular nuclear reactor inside a submarine moored near you if you happen to live close to HMAS Stirling Naval Base in Perth, the Osborne Naval Shipyards in Adelaide, SA or the yet to be opened mystery envelope containing only three options, Sydney Harbour, Wollongong/ Port Kembla or Newcastle.

Hint. The Royal Australian Navy berths in Sydney Harbour.

Moreover, the disposing of nuclear waste is also well in hand, notes Patrick.

“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”

In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.

Yet even today it’s uneconomic and fraught with a perplex of disposal and safety issues. Dutts the Kiwi Bikie Gangster Deporter, Dual Citizenship-Stripper, Dole-bludger-buster, or the African Gang vigilante; dog-whistling racism, fear and division, demonising the other, is as complex as the next bloke. But he is not a big ideas man. Fizza Turnbull has never heard Peter propose a single constructive idea.

Dutton’s mentor, John Howard was rarely troubled by big ideas either. But now, Dutton is calling for “a mature debate™” on a nuclear energy, we don’t need, can’t afford, could never rely on and can’t fuel. We’d be importing expensive fuel rods we can’t make at home for reactors which would never be built in time (without a slave labour workforce like the UAE) to replace our rapidly clapped-out coal-fired plant

Continue reading →

March 20, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade

AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors

Peter Hannam, Guardian. 19 Mar 24

Australia’s big private electricity generators have dismissed nuclear energy as a viable source of power for their customers for at least a decade.

They say they will remain focused on developing renewable sources as coal and gas plants exit the grid.

The comments – from AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy – follow an announcement by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Coalition would back both large-scale and small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as a way to cut electricity prices and increase grid reliability.

Energy Australia, whose Hong Kong-listed owner CLP currently operates two large nuclear power stations in mainland China, said the company was “committed to Australia’s clean energy transformation, reducing emissions as quickly and affordably as possible while maintaining system reliability”…………………………………………

NSW’s chief scientist, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, dismissed the comparisons by nuclear energy advocates of places such as Ontario, Canada. That country had spent decades building a nuclear industry employing 70,000 people.

“Nobody in this country has even the faintest idea how to build a nuclear power plant,” Durrant-Whyte, a former nuclear adviser to the UK government, told NSW upper house estimates earlier this month.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/19/australias-big-electricity-generators-say-nuclear-not-viable-for-at-least-a-decade

March 20, 2024 Posted by | business | Leave a comment

A chance to break the nuclear links – Kate Hudson, CND

This is about the UK. But wow! How much does it apply to Australia? Even more so than in the UK, America is both placing its military targets in many places in Australia, and continuing to drag Australia into unnecessary wars, And the next will be against China.

,
 https://labouroutlook.org/2024/03/17/a-chance-to-break-the-nuclear-links-kate-hudson-cnd/

“It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.”

By Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Whoever is in the White House after the upcoming presidential election, one thing is clear: Britain has to break its ‘special nuclear relationship’ with the US. We’re all familiar with the so-called ‘special relationship’, basically tying Britain into really bad foreign policy decisions. But not so many people know about the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.

Known in full as the ‘Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes’, the treaty initially established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.

At the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.


This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in2014 – without any parliamentary debate or vote. The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the United States Congress.

Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability, is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House this is an even greater cause for concern. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the NPT: the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’.


Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, as it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of thenuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.

On every level the MDA must be challenged. It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme. When the US seems hell-bent on taking us into war after war, unquestioning allegiance from the UK cannot continue.

The MDA is up for renewal again this year. Now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest,and making the case for independence. It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. Watch this space!

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mainstream climate scientists run the risk of becoming the new climate deniers.

 “Executive Summary”

  1. The speed with which the climate is now changing is faster than (almost) all scientists thought possible.
  2. There is now zero prospect of holding the average temperature increase this century to below 1.5°C; even 2°C is beginning to slip out of reach. The vast majority of climate scientists know this, but rarely if ever give voice to this critically important reality.
  3. At the same time, the vast majority of people still haven’t a clue about what’s going on – and what this means for them and everything they hold dear.
  4. The current backlash against existing (already wholly inadequate) climate measures is also accelerating – and will cause considerable political damage in 2024. Those driving this backlash represent the same old climate denial that has been so damaging over so many years.
  5. The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption.
  6. By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.


more https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Space tourists and crew suffer high radiation risks – regulation is needed to protect them.

exposure to elevated levels of ionising radiation, such as those possible during space weather events, can potentially cause damage to DNA. The risk of space travel therefore ranges from a minor increase in health defects to serious health implications such as cancers.

The space tourism industry is currently not fully aware of the radiation risks, we discovered. It is instead relying on incomplete “informed consent” for non-crew participants.

The Conversation, March 19, 2024 , Chris Rees, Postgraduate Researcher of Space Risk Engineering, University of Surrey

In a decade or two, journeys into space could become as normal [really?]as transatlantic flights. In particular, the number of humans travelling into space with the help of commercial companies, such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, will increase significantly.

But such travel comes with huge radiation risks. Sudden changes in space weather, such as solar flares, for example, could have significant health implications for crew and passengers. Now our recent paper, from the University of Surrey, Foot Anstey LLP Space and Satellite Team, has found that current legislation and regulation don’t do enough to protect space tourists and crew.

Changes in space weather could expose space tourists to radiation doses in excess of the recommended maximum 1 millisievert (mSv) yearly uptake for a member of the public and 20mSv yearly for those working with radiation. Research at the University of Surrey shows that during an extreme space weather event, flight participants could receive doses in excess of 100mSv.

Current legislation and regulation focusing on potential radiation exposure for space tourists is limited and largely untested. There is a heavy focus on conventional non-radiation risk and wider safety, with guidance stemming from regulation of normal commercial flights. However, these are significantly different to space tourism enterprises.

Similarly, the law around space flights and their associated risk liability is complex. Space law incorporates a mix of international law (such as international agreements, treaties and conventions), domestic legislation and guidance.

Cancer risk

Exposure to low levels of background natural radiation is part of everyday life. Most people are not aware of this exposure and the potential risks to our health. For example, an 0.08mSv effective dose from a commercial flight from the UK to the US.

However, exposure to elevated levels of ionising radiation, such as those possible during space weather events, can potentially cause damage to DNA. The risk of space travel therefore ranges from a minor increase in health defects to serious health implications such as cancers.

There has been significant risk assessment of radiation exposure on Earth; for example in the nuclear industry. This is unlike the space tourism industry, which is still in its infancy.

Previous research has focused on the potential risk assessment for astronauts from radiation exposure and long duration missions outside low-Earth orbit. But this does not consider risks for those on short trips to space as tourists. Thus, there is still significant work to be done to assess the unique risk for space tourist flights and the supporting guidance and regulation.

Any existing regulation, such as the UK Air Navigation Order and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) space flight regulations, that is applicable to potential space flights focuses on crew, rather than paying passengers.

The space tourism industry is currently not fully aware of the radiation risks, we discovered. It is instead relying on incomplete “informed consent” for non-crew participants. The current regulation for the industry therefore places the risk burden firmly on the space tourist. We argue more legislation and regulation are needed.

Our recommendations

We made a series of recommendations in our report. But they are advisory. They are intended for the industry and regulators to consider as the space tourism sector continues to develop, particularly the FAA and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)………………………………… more https://theconversation.com/space-tourists-and-crew-suffer-high-radiation-risks-regulation-is-needed-to-protect-them-225693

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Japan finishes first-year ocean discharge of nuclear-tainted wastewater amid backlash

“All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years,“

“There is no good reason to dump radioactive materials into the ocean. There is no reason to just dilute them and flush them away,“

https://thesun.my/world/japan-finishes-first-year-ocean-discharge-of-nuclear-tainted-wastewater-amid-backlash-PD12227910 18 Mar 24,

TOKYO: Despite opposition and concern from at home and abroad, Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has finished its initial year of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean, according to the plant’s operator, said Xinhua.

As per the initial plan, approximately 31,200 tons of wastewater, containing radioactive tritium, was released into the ocean since the discharge started in August 2023, with each round of discharge carried out for about two weeks. Earlier this week, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi emphasised continued efforts in monitoring Japan’s ocean discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled plant, following his first visit to Fukushima prefecture since the discharge started.

Stressing that the discharge marks merely the initial phase of a long process, Grossi said that “much effort will be required in the lengthy process ahead,“ and reiterated the organisation’s stance on maintaining vigilance throughout the process.

While the Japanese government and TEPCO have asserted the safety and necessity of the discharge, concerns have been raised by neighbouring countries and local stakeholders regarding environmental impacts.

“All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years,“ said Haruo Ono, a fisherman in the town of Shinchi in Fukushima.

“There is no good reason to dump radioactive materials into the ocean. There is no reason to just dilute them and flush them away,“ said the man in his 70s.

“Is it really necessary, in the first place, to dump what has been stored in tanks into the sea? How can we say it’s ‘safe’ when the discharged water clearly consists of harmful radioactive substances? I think the government and TEPCO must provide a solid answer,“ said Chiyo Oda, a resident of Fukushima’s Iwaki city.

Concerns were fuelled among the Japanese public over the recent leakage of contaminated water from pipes at the Fukushima plant. – Bernama, Xinhua

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

 Nuclear news – week to 18 March

Some bits of good news.  Notable wins in climate and environmental justice.   Scotland made rewilding progress.  The Danish City Reimagining Reuse.    

TOP STORIES. Why the US is trying to imprison Assange: Report from inside the Court. 

Reversing Europe’s and Australia’s slide into irrelevance & insecurity – National Press Club of Australia speech- Yanis Varoufakis. 

There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor . 

Nuclear industry wants Canada to lift ban on reprocessing plutonium, despite proliferation risks. 

Cold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power. 

Conditions inside Fukushima’s melted nuclear reactors still unclear 13 years after disaster struck – also at https://nuclear-news.net/2024/03/14/3-a-conditions-inside-fukushimas-melted-nuclear-reactors-still-unclear-13-years-after-disaster-struck/

Climate. ‘Greenhushing’ Is On the Rise as Companies Go Silent on Climate Pledges.

Nuclear. Australia media – normally focussed on football, has a spasm about nuclear. Rest of the anglophone world gives climate, nuclear, a nod, amongst gaffes of UK royalty, and fashion, celebrities and sport. Gaza gets a mention, too,

Noel’s notes. Julian Assange, atrocities, nuclear war, AI, “Oppenheimer”, and the whole damn thing. AUKUS nuclear pact – a lame duck?         Nuclear power and the ignorance of journalists – it’s almost criminal.

nb. Huge number of articles on nuclear in the Australian media. From next week, I will cut them back to just a representative few.


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

 AUSTRALIA. (There are more articles than this – but I had to stop!)

NUCLEAR ISSUES

ARTS and CULTURE. The ideology of war in Ukraine and Israel.ECONOMICS. HSBC leads Sizewell C investment push as time ticks on final investment decision.
NuScale nuclear power is among Top 5 Industrials Stocks That May Fall Off A Cliff In Q1.		EMPLOYMENT, Dounreay workers vote on strike action after pay talks stall,
MEDIA.
 Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic.
Film poses moral questions about 2011 Fukushima disaster displacement . The Film RADIOACTIVE: The women of Three Mile Island will start streaming on Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video from March 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3jlNhicFY 

Keep Your Money Out of Nukes! Anti-Nuclear Financial Fitness w/Domini’s Mary Beth Gallagher: PODCAST.
UN report finds Israel deliberately targeted journalists – Reuters.

OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Bridgwater activists shine light on nuclear power in UK.
POLITICS.Japan’s Nuclear Energy Policy Disaster. Japan Ramps Up Drive to Restart World’s Biggest Nuclear Plant.

Ralph Nader: Open Letter to President Biden 3.12.24. Decision time Democrats: Oppose Biden’s genocide in Gaza or tacitly support it.

UK Steps Up Sizewell Nuclear Push With State-Backed Loans. UK’s Spring budget a ‘myopic sop’ to nuclear obsessives. UK government plans to block foreign control of newspapers – what about foreign control of Sizewell nuclear project ?The U.S. Is Betting Big on Small Nuclear Reactors (done up with green paint)		POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. French president Emmanuel Macron tells Putin ‘WE are a nuclear power and WE are ready’ in latest WW3 rhetoric.

As ‘Oppenheimer’ wins big, we should worry about lowering of nuclear thresholds.
PROTESTS. In pre-election messaging, Putin less strident on nuclear war.

PUBLIC OPINION. 
‘Don’t hold your breath’ – people living in Wylfa’s shadow have say on nuclear development plans.

SAFETY. Incidents. Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant reports shelling by Ukraine army 
Shelling continues near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station.

Observing the 45th Anniversary of the Worst U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Accident.

SECRETS and LIES.
 The International Atomic Energy Agency recruiting spies?

SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS.
Musk’s SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say

SPINBUSTER. Exposing myths about building French nuclear power.
IAEA director’s visit to Japan widely questioned, seeks to downplay nuclear water dumping.
TECHNOLOGY. La Hague reprocessing plant: expansion and continued operation until at least 2100.
WAR and CONFLICT. Putin warns again that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty is threatened.

Will Biden’s, NATO’s military personnel in Ukraine cross the last red line to Armageddon?

Netanyahu approves Rafah ground invasion, despite Biden opposition.

War Games in Arctic: What’s Driving the West’s New Passion?


WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paves Way for Increase in Production in Commercial Reactors of Tritium for Nuclear Weapons.

Huge UK £286bn nuclear submarine deal with US at risk for one reason warns ex Navy chief.

EU to use Russian assets to buy arms for Ukraine – Scholz.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Turnbull says Australia ‘mugged by reality’ on Aukus deal as US set to halve submarine build

“Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”

Former PM says the reality is the US will not make their submarine deficit worse by giving or selling submarines to Australia

Amy Remeikis, Wed 13 Mar 2024 ,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/turnbull-says-australia-mugged-by-reality-on-aukus-deal-as-us-set-to-halve-submarine-build

Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”

The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia has been “mugged by reality” over the Aukus submarine deal after the US announced it will halve the number of submarines it will build next year, throwing the Australia end of the agreement into doubt.

With the US president, Joe Biden, continuing to face a hostile Congress, the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025.

Under the Aukus agreement, production is meant to be ramped up to ensure Australia will have access to at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s. That is to fill a “capability gap” before nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide enter into service from the 2040s.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, played down the impact of the US budget announcement, insisting that “our plans are very clear”.

“We have an agreement that was reached with the United States and the UK,” Albanese told reporters in Darwin on Wednesday. “That legislation went through the US Congress last year. That was a product of a lot of hard work.”

The defence minister, Richard Marles, said earlier that the US remained committed to the deal.

“As we approach the one-year anniversary of Aukus, Australia, the United States and United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March, which will see Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” he said.

“All three Aukus partners are working at pace to integrate our industrial bases and to realise this historic initiative between our countries.”

Greens senator David Shoebridge, who has been critical of the Aukus deal from the start, said the US budget announcement was the beginning of the end of Aukus.

“When the US passed the law to set up Aukus, they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to not transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’. Budgeting for one submarine all but guarantees this,” he said on X.

4/ The failure is almost too big to wrap your head around.

We are providing billions of dollars to the US, have given up an independent foreign policy and made Australia a parking lot for US weapons. In exchange, we get nothing.

Nothing but a big target and empty pockets.— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) March 12, 2024

The US budget does include increased spending on the submarine industrial base, which was a key component of the Aukus pillar one deal, as it laid the groundwork to increase production in the coming years.

But Turnbull, an architect of the French submarine deal which was unceremoniously dumped by the Morrison government in favour of the Aukus deal, said Australia was now at the mercy of the United States for a key part of its defence strategy.

He said that the US needed to increase submarine production to meet its own needs before it was able to transfer boats to Australia, but were now only producing about half as many that were needed for the US navy and were struggling to maintain the boats they held, due to labour shortages.

“What does that mean for Australia? It means because the Morrison government, adopted by Albanese, has basically abandoned our sovereignty in terms of submarines, we are completely dependent on what happens in the United States as to whether we get them now,” he told ABC radio.

“The reality is the Americans are not going to make their submarine deficit worse than it is already by giving or selling submarines to Australia and the Aukus legislation actually sets that out quite specifically.skip past newsletter promotion

“So you know, this is really a case of us being mugged by reality. I mean, there’s a lot of Aukus cheerleaders, and anyone that has any criticism of Aukus is almost described as being unpatriotic. We’ve got to be realistic here.”

The ALP grassroots activist group, Labor Against War, want the Albanese government to freeze Aukus payments to the US so as not to “underwrite the US navy industrial shipyards”.

The national convenor of Labor Against War, Marcus Strom, said Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,” he said.

“This Labor government managed to junk Scott Morrison’s tax plan. Why would it be so stupid to continue with his war plan?”

While the Pentagon has sought to assure Australia its submarine production will be back on track by 2028, the looming threat of Donald Trump returning to the White House has raised further concerns the deal will be scuttled.

“On Aukus pillar 1 we are effectively in conflict with the needs of the US navy, and you know as well as I do the American government, when it comes to a choice between the needs of the US navy and the Australian navy, are always going to back their own,” Turnbull said.

Marles has previously denied Aukus will erode Australia’s sovereignty. In a speech to parliament last year, Marles said Australia would “always make sovereign, independent decisions on how our capabilities are employed”.

Additional reporting by Daniel Hurst

March 19, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy debate ‘many years’ away: Qld Deputy Opposition leader

 https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/nuclear-energy-debate-many-years-away-qld-deputy-opposition-leader/video/1f0309603f7dbfdfb9f321d128ec63fe 18 Mar 24

Queensland Deputy Opposition leader Jarrod Bleijie claims the nuclear energy debate is “many years” away as he focuses on lowering power prices in the immediate future.

Mr Bleijie said he is focusing on making sure energy is affordable and reliable as the Opposition pushes to bring its coal power stations back online.

“There is a lot of water to go under that bridge before that is the case and I suspect we will be at an election before our federal counterparts,” Mr Bleijie told Sky News Australia.

“I stood at the booths in Ipswich West and Inala and every second person was talking about the cost of living crisis in Queensland now.

“People are hurting, they need to see their electricity bills reduced now and that has to be our priority.”

March 19, 2024 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »