Russia the most popular national destination for refugees from Ukraine
UN: The Largest Number of Ukrainian Refugees Are Fleeing From “Russian Aggression” … to Russia!
The Stalker Zone 6 August (good tables and graphs)
Theses of Ukrainian propaganda about “Kremlin aggression” and the “genocide of the Ukrainian people” are in danger – the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has reported fresh data about the movement of refugees from Ukraine across Europe. As of August 3 of this year, 6,303,226 refugees from Ukraine were registered in Europe, while from February 24 to August 03 there were 10,350,489 crossings of the Ukrainian border outbound and 4,272,233 crossings inbound.
The distribution by country of destination (top 5) as of August 3rd is as follows:
- Russian Federation – 1,968,127 crossings;
- Poland – 1,256,568;
- Germany – 915,000;
- Czech Republic – 400,559;
- Italy – 157,309.
Out of the 6.3 million Ukrainian refugees, about 2 million (every third!) chose the Russian direction. In addition, according to the UN, 105,000 citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics were evacuated to Russia from February 18 to 23, which exceeds the number of refugees in 5 months, for example, to the UK (104,000 people).
Cross-border movement on the Polish-Ukrainian border is also of interest: from February 24 to August 03, there were 5,105,850 departures (with a peak of 140,843 on March 06 and a further sharp decline) and 3,083,783 entries. Since the end of March, the number of returnees (about 35,000) significantly exceeds the number leaving Ukraine via Poland (about 25,000 per day).
As of 03.08.2022, 1,256,568 Ukrainian refugees were registered in Poland, from which 1,138,647 (90%) were children under the age of 18 and women (data for voivodeships, gender and age are below on original ) https://www.stalkerzone.org/un-the-largest-number-of-ukrainian-refugees-are-fleeing-from-russian-aggression-to-russia/
Russia and Ukraine accused each other of shelling Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant in the Zaporizhzhia region
Russia and Ukraine accused each other of shelling Europe’s biggest nuclear
power plant in the Zaporizhzhia region as the world on Saturday marked the
77th anniversary of the first atomic bomb attack in the Japanese city of
Hiroshima, with UN chief Antonio Guterres warning against nuclear arms
build-up amid fears of another such attack in the context of war in
Ukraine.
France24 6th Aug 2022
Evacuation would be almost impossible in the event of an accident at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
Oleksandr Starukh, Head of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Military
Administration, has stated that evacuation will be almost impossible in
case of an accident at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
“A prepared provocation took place in Enerhodar town. Two power lines were damaged,
power unit No. 4 [of Zaporizhzhia NPP] was disconnected from the power
grid. There is no great danger yet, but I must state that it is almost
impossible to implement our evacuation plans in the current conditions,”
Starukh said during the nationwide telethon.
Read also: Ukraine calls on
world to take measures to force Russians to release Zaporizhia NPP.
According to him, all shelters in the territory of the NPP are occupied by
the Russian military. As reported, on the evening of August 5, Russians hit
a high-voltage power line at the ZNPP, and a fire broke out. As a result of
damage to power lines, power unit No. 4 of the NPP was disconnected from
the power grid.
Ukrinform 7th Aug 2022
Bad luck for the river environment – nuclear reactors allowed to release hotter water
Heat wave: the State grants environmental exemptions to maintain the
activity of five nuclear power plants. These derogations will allow the
power stations to discharge warmer water than usual, which could have
negative effects on the environment.
The nuclear power plants of Blayais, Saint-Alban-Saint-Maurice, Golfech, Bugey and Tricastin will benefit until September 11 from environmental exemptions concerning the temperatures of
water discharge because of the high temperatures. With a downside: possible
negative effects on the environment.
France Info 6th Aug 2022
Chinese expert from Peace Centre points out America’s hypocrisy, double standards, on Nuclear Non Proliferation
the US, which has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal, plans to spend over $1 trillion to maintain and modernize its nuclear triad. Furthermore, Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties successively. President Joe Biden stepped back from a campaign promise that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons should be to deter nuclear attacks. All these moves may result in nuclear proliferation globally.
under AUKUS, the US and the UK are anticipated to assist Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines, which has severely violated the principles of the NPT.
Root of the grave, urgent nuclear proliferation situation lies in US.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272415.shtml By Global Times, Aug 07, 2022With the 10th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) being held at the United Nations headquarters in New York from August 1 to 26, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation has once again become the focus of global attention.
Washington today doesn’t let go of any occasion that can be exploited to smear and contain China. A US representative on Thursday at the NPT Review Conference baselessly criticized China for accelerating the expansion of its nuclear arsenal. And the US side also accused China of not engaging in talks on new arms control framework. China has lashed out at the rhetoric.
“By making such groundless accusations, Washington wants to deflect blame, distract attention and shun US’ due responsibility in securing global nuclear safety. Washington hopes this way can constrain the improvement of its main competitor’s nuclear capabilities,” Su Hao, founding director of the Center for Strategic and Peace Studies at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.
China has always kept the quantity and size of its armed forces at the minimum level necessary for maintaining national security. China’s nuclear strategy focuses on self-defense, and aims to ensure the strategic security of the country by deterring the potential threat or use of nuclear weapons by others against China. And China has never taken part and will never take part in any nuclear arms race. Washington’s rhetoric is totally irrational.
In fact, the country that has blatantly violated the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is the US. Chinese Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs Li Song on Friday blasted the US for its negative moves on disarmament. He told a committee meeting of 10th NPT Review Conference that Driven by the Cold War mentality, the US has been obsessed with major-power strategic competition and has sought absolute strategic advantage, strengthened military alliances, stirred up bloc confrontation on the eastern and western sides of the Eurasia continent, and pressed ahead with the forward deployment of nuclear missiles and other strategic forces.
The landscape on international security is deteriorating and the risk of nuclear proliferation is growing. The responsibility lies with the US.
The US-led NATO’s continuous eastern expansion triggered the military clash between Russia and Ukraine, with no sign of easing up to now. In the Asia-Pacific region, Washington has provoked China’s national security in a high-profile manner for several times, in an attempt to contain China. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the island of Taiwan is the latest example, which has ramped up the cross-Straits tensions.
Meanwhile, the US, which has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal, plans to spend over $1 trillion to maintain and modernize its nuclear triad. Furthermore, Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties successively. President Joe Biden stepped back from a campaign promise that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons should be to deter nuclear attacks. All these moves may result in nuclear proliferation globally.
According to Song Zhongping, a Chinese mainland military expert and TV commentator, the US has always adopted double standards on nuclear non-proliferation. As one of the first countries to call for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US is constantly setting rules on the nuclear non-proliferation to deter other countries, especially its rivals, from developing nuclear capabilities. But ironically, the US itself does not abide by these treaties and rules at all. For example, under AUKUS, the US and the UK are anticipated to assist Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines, which has severely violated the principles of the NPT. The US should not always give the green light to itself and the red light to others on this issue, as such a practice will lead to nuclear proliferation and arms race.
The biggest crisis confronted by the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism is that because of US’ double standards, distrust among countries has been rising. As a result, an increasing number of countries do not believe in the restraint mechanism brought by the NPT. It can be concluded that the root of the grave and urgent nuclear proliferation situation lies in the US.
The US-led global governance mechanism is disabled in nuclear non-proliferation. “This is because this mechanism is a unilateral, selfish, narrow-minded, bloc-political governance, to serve the US in maintaining its global hegemony. Such a global governance system will only lead the international community more tense and turbulent,” noted Su.
“The nuclear non-proliferation advocated by the US is entirely out of its geopolitical consideration. Washington’s hegemonic mindset increases the difficulty of achieving true nuclear non-proliferation. The US must take the lead in implementing the NPT; otherwise, nuclear non-proliferation cannot become a reality,” said Song.
China has always advocated building a community with a shared future for mankind. Only if the international community, including the US, can consider the nuclear non-proliferation from this perspective will such a crucial international problem be addressed.
The Germany energy revolution is working — Beyond Nuclear International
Answering the critics and naysayers
The Germany energy revolution is working — Beyond Nuclear International
“Carbon tax on wheels?” The dirty tactics that stopped Australia going electric — RenewEconomy
Australia is paying a high price – in terms of fuel bills, health impact and energy security – because of the scare campaigns against fuel efficiency standards. The post “Carbon tax on wheels?” The dirty tactics that stopped Australia going electric appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Carbon tax on wheels?” The dirty tactics that stopped Australia going electric — RenewEconomy
World’s first subsidy-free offshore wind farm starts to produce power — RenewEconomy
The world’s first subsidy-free offshore wind farm, located off the coast of the Netherlands, has begun generating electricity. The post World’s first subsidy-free offshore wind farm starts to produce power appeared first on RenewEconomy.
World’s first subsidy-free offshore wind farm starts to produce power — RenewEconomy
Wind energy delivers one third of electricity of Australia’s main grid for first time — RenewEconomy
Wind energy reaches one third of total output in Australia’s main grid for first time, up from a maximum 12 per cent just four years ago. The post Wind energy delivers one third of electricity of Australia’s main grid for first time appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Wind energy delivers one third of electricity of Australia’s main grid for first time — RenewEconomy
August 7 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “30 Million EV Battery Packs In 2027?” • There are expected to be about 10 million EV battery packs shipped in 2022 globally, according to research firm Juniper Research. The company forecasts that number will rise to 30 million in 2027. A simple calculation shows that Juniper Research belives 25.8% of the global […]
August 7 Energy News — geoharvey
Indo-Pacific can be major hub for global renewable energy supply chain — RenewEconomy
The needle is moving in the Indo-Pacific region towards collaboration, multi-lateral support and action that can provide multiple pathways to decarbonisation. The post Indo-Pacific can be major hub for global renewable energy supply chain appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Indo-Pacific can be major hub for global renewable energy supply chain — RenewEconomy
“Unprecedented:” US Senate finally passes landmark $A540 billion climate bill — RenewEconomy
The US Senate has passed a landmark climate bill – the biggest in its history, although a fraction of what Joe Biden wanted to do. The post “Unprecedented:” US Senate finally passes landmark $A540 billion climate bill appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Unprecedented:” US Senate finally passes landmark $A540 billion climate bill — RenewEconomy
Nuclear weapons will not bring peace or security, only dangers.
We can honour the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by supporting the prohibition treaty, says RAE STREET https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/nuclear-weapons-will-not-bring-peace-or1 6 Aug, 22,
THIS is the month when we commemorate the fearful nuclear bombings of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Alas, the myth is still put out that the bombs were dropped to end the second world war. That is not true.
By the time the bomb was ready for use, Japan was ready to surrender. As General Dwight D Eisenhower said, Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face, and “it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
Thus, the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped on August 6 before it was publicly stated that the Japanese had surrendered.
The Soviet Union entered the war in Asia on August 9. Later the same day, the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki.
We now know the horrors that nuclear bombs inflict. We have heard from the Hibaksha, the survivors. Now instead of heeding the survivors of those bombs, the Hibaksha, that nuclear weapons should be ended, governments across the world have developed more destructive nuclear bombs.
Britain, part of the US Trident submarine system, carries warheads on multiple missiles, with 15 times the power of the bomb used on Hiroshima.
Proponents of nuclear weapons, including the Nato military alliance, claim that they keep the peace and repeatedly talk of nuclear deterrents.
But the US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and it did not stop the attack on the Twin Towers; nor did Trident stop terrorist attacks in Britain.
What is never mentioned is the death and destruction which has been brought about with the development of nuclear weapons, mainly on indigenous peoples.
This starts with the beginning of the cycle with uranium mining where native people in the US, in Canada, in Australia and the Congo, among others, have been forced into mining.
They and their families have suffered serious illness and even death. Above-ground testing has also brought suffering to native peoples.
After the French testing in the Pacific, mothers gave birth to “jellyfish” babies which died within a few hours. In the US above-ground testing meant that many of the “downwinders,” including the Western Shoshone, became seriously ill.
Although above-ground tests have now ended following the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, uranium mining has not ceased.
It continues except for Greenland where the Inuit, now in government, have banned uranium mining.
In 2022, with the war in Ukraine, we are now in more danger than ever before of a further use of nuclear weapons. If ever one of these highly destructive current bombs were exploded either by intent or accident, it would be a worldwide catastrophe.
There would be fires and radioactive fallout and fatal illnesses from acute radiation sickness, cancer and genetic damage which can be passed on to offspring.
At the same time, nuclear fireballs would send up enormous quantities of dust high into the atmosphere, blotting out the sun which would lead to nuclear winter.
And the contaminated ground would be unsuitable for food production leading to food shortages. In effect, if people had not died any other way, they would die of hunger.
Yet our current government not only supports the replacement of Trident but in the Integrated Defence Review increased the cap on Britain’s stockpile for 2025 from 180 to 260.
They even changed the scenario for nuclear use to “emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact,” possibly cyber-attacks but maybe some conventional weapons?
Starmer, once more making himself into a Tory by default, said via his shadow defence minister that Trident was “non-negotiable.”
Even the cost should have made him hesitate on this. It is estimated that the cost in public money — our money — will be £205 billion (and rising) to replace Trident.
And that when working people are struggling and across the world people starve; where we also urgently need funding for the transition from fossil fuels.
Nato too still holds a policy of first use of nuclear weapons and through the US, which has always dominated Nato policy, keeps “nuclear sharing,” weapons on the territory of five states: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Without any public debate, we now know that nuclear bombs and nuclear capable aircraft are to be brought back to Lakenheath in Suffolk.
But the majority world wants nuclear disarmament. In January 2021, the UN-negotiated Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force which now has 138 signatories — but not the Nato nuclear-armed states which were prevented by Nato.
Sixty-six states have now ratified the treaty. Our government and the Labour Party should be supporting the treaty because nuclear weapons will not bring peace or security, only dangers.
That way we would honour the memory of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our politicians should be looking at how to develop “common security,” putting funding and resources into dialogue and negotiation and respecting the security of everyone.
Does Australia actually need nuclear submarines?
“It’s obvious the real policy is to subsidise the US Navy’s submarine budget. Some will be located in Australia, with Australian flags and personnel, but they’re essentially US boats operated in the US’s great power interests. We’re paying for them to set up part of their current and future fleet in Australia.”
fewer than two of Australia’s eight nuclear submarines would be operationally available, on average, each year. And the cost of the purchases is likely to be stunning, possibly as high as $171 billion……………….. No other country has bought this type.
“Australia could buy 20 high-quality, off-the-shelf, modern submarines for $30 billion.”
influential Australian intelligence and defence officials are ignoring the point that there is no need for Australian submarines to spend much time in China’s waters
Gilligan also warns that the shallow and warm waters around Australia’s north are unsuited to large nuclear submarines.
As experts question the diplomatic, strategic and economic rationale behind Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered submarines, the gaps in the country’s defensive fleet could be filled by conventional subs. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/08/06/does-australia-actually-need-nuclear-submarines#mtr By Brian Toohey. 6 Aug 22,
In 1992, an Australian Oberon-class submarine entered the crowded waters of Shanghai’s port and became entangled in fishing nets. It had to surface for crew members to cut it free with axes. Chinese Navy sailors witnessed this, but nevertheless the submarine escaped. Had it not, the crew would’ve been imprisoned and Australia widely condemned and potentially convicted for an outrageous breach of international law.
Almost a decade earlier, the Australian Navy had seriously considered scrapping submarines, according to former senior Australian Defence official Mike Gilligan. A study in 1985 had concluded they offered “little marginal benefit to Australia’s defences yet inflict a large marginal cost”. The cost could’ve been much higher given the tremendous risks the government allowed the navy to take, snooping in Chinese and Russian waters on behalf of the Americans, who wouldn’t put their nuclear submarines in danger.
Australia now faces some tough and highly consequential decisions with respect to its fleet. Some experts in the defence field question not only the utility of nuclear-powered vessels but the diplomatic, strategic and economic commitment they entail.
In Washington last month, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia, the United States and Britain were moving from “interoperability to interchangeability in defence hardware”. This would effectively mean Australia could not buy high-quality defence equipment from other countries if there was a higher-cost American or British version available. Professor Clinton Fernandes at the UNSW Canberra campus says, “It’s obvious the real policy is to subsidise the US Navy’s submarine budget. Some will be located in Australia, with Australian flags and personnel, but they’re essentially US boats operated in the US’s great power interests. We’re paying for them to set up part of their current and future fleet in Australia.”
Australia has a short and patchy record on submarine purchases. The government acquired many major weapons during World War II. None were submarines. That capability had to wait until the first of a total of six Oberon-class submarines was commissioned in 1967 from a Scottish shipyard. They operated satisfactorily but weren’t considered the nation’s most important military assets.
After Kim Beazley became Defence minister in the Hawke government, he gambled on the value of submarines by ordering six large, battery-powered versions to be built in Adelaide. No other country has bought this type.
The first was commissioned in 1966 and the last in 2003. Called the Collins class, it was based on a good Swedish design. But Beazley greatly increased its size and complexity, partly by adding American equipment that proved completely useless. Maintenance problems drove annual sustainment costs to $670 million. Often only two or three were available at a time, although availability later improved. And none attended the 2010 Rim of the Pacific event – known as Rimpac, the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise, held biennially near Hawaii.
Former prime minister Scott Morrison and his successor, Anthony Albanese, have taken a much bigger gamble than Beazley did, with their commitment to buy at least eight nuclear attack submarines – almost certainly the American Virginia class. One of the US’s most highly regarded defence analysts, Winslow Wheeler, recently pointed out the Virginia-class subs have been available only 15 times in 33 years for their six-monthly deployments. This suggests fewer than two of Australia’s eight nuclear submarines would be operationally available, on average, each year. And the cost of the purchases is likely to be stunning, possibly as high as $171 billion when accounting for inflation, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and more recent estimates are above $200 billion. The costliest previous military acquisition, for the Australian Air Force, is the inflation-adjusted $16.6 billion program cost for 72 F-35 fighter jets.
Former submariner, naval consultant and South Australian senator Rex Patrick says, “Australia could buy 20 high-quality, off-the-shelf, modern submarines for $30 billion.”
Patrick also makes the point that nuclear submarines are often “defeated” in exercises by ultra-quiet conventional submarines.
Major new developments are making conventional submarines even more formidable than the nuclear versions. More powerful sensors mean submarines can be detected by the noise they make and by their passage through the Earth’s magnetic field. In addition, nuclear submarines can be detected by the wake they leave at high speeds, as well as the hot water they release from cooling their nuclear reactors, operating loud steam engines and other equipment. In future, submarines may also be detected by blue-green lasers that make the ocean more transparent.
A prize-winning essay published in the US Naval Institute’s magazine Proceedings in June 2018 said the US Navy would do well to consider acquiring “some quiet, inexpensive and highly capable diesel-electric submarines”. Until recently, conventionally powered submarines frequently had to rise close the surface to expose a mast and snorkel to obtain fresh air for their diesel engines to recharge the batteries. This process can be detected by radar.
Most conventionally powered submarines – except Australia’s – use what is called air independent propulsion (AIP), which allows them to remain silent for four to six weeks before snorkelling. That often entails using a hydrogen fuel cell to propel the submarine, but it takes up significant space on the vessel.
In a major change, Japan’s new Taigei-class submarines don’t need AIP because they’re equipped with particularly efficient lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminium oxide batteries, rather than the lead-acid batteries that the Australian Navy prefers, due in part to the risks of lithium-ion batteries catching fire. Other navies are increasingly confident the new types of battery will prove safe. Hans Ohff, a submarine specialist and visiting fellow at Adelaide University, told The Saturday Paper, “Generally speaking, lithium-ion batteries have a 1.5-times range advantage over lead-acid at lower speeds and an incredible four-times range advantage at high speeds.”
Since the Collins class is due to start retiring in 2026, a replacement is urgently required to help fill the gap until the first nuclear submarine might arrive, near 2045, and the last in 2065. Senator Patrick says the time it takes to do this can be reduced by choosing one of the three available “off-the-shelf” submarines: Japan’s Taigei, which has passed numerous tests demonstrating the safety of its new batteries; Singapore’s Type 218SG, made by Germany’s thyssenkrupp Marine Systems; and the Spanish S-81. The latter two still use conventional lead-acid batteries, but Ohff says a French and German joint venture is under way to develop their own lithium-ion batteries.
These options have advantages and drawbacks. The new Taigei class – of which Japan is acquiring 22 – requires a costly crew of 70 per vessel. The Type 218SG’s German manufacturer is the biggest submarine exporter in the world, with an enviable reputation for low maintenance costs across its range. Extensive automation means it needs only 28 crew members, and the vessel has a longer range than the Taigei’s 12,500 kilometres. Spain’s S-81 has a crew of 32 but a less experienced manufacturer.
With China being the principal concern of Australian diplomatic and defence policymakers, Ohff says the navy will never accept off-the-shelf submarines unless it can “Australianise” them – meaning they must have the range to operate for long periods, many thousands of kilometres away, probably in Chinese waters or nearby. Ohff says the navy’s preferences would take a minimum of 10 years to deliver the first boat and additional two-year intervals for the following boats. He says delivery of a Swedish “Son of Collins” could take nine years.
Patrick says influential Australian intelligence and defence officials are ignoring the point that there is no need for Australian submarines to spend much time in China’s waters: Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam have high-quality submarines closer to China. The main attraction of nuclear submarines for these officials is they could fire subsonic cruise missiles at land targets in China from more than 1000 kilometres off its coast. However, cruise missiles can be shot down by fighter planes overhead. Once a nuclear submarine fired its missiles, it would be detected and swiftly targeted. Even if it survived, reloading would require the help of a tender – a large depot ship that supplies and supports submarines – probably from the distant base at Fremantle, which recently hosted a reloading for a US nuclear submarine. In any event, an attack on Chinese territory could provoke a heavy counterattack on Australia’s forces or its mainland.
Gilligan says most of the capability offered by submarines is better provided by Australia’s maritime and land-based aircraft. He says submarines, including nuclear ones, are slow compared to aircraft. Technically, a plane could sink a ship off Australia’s west coast in the morning, refuel, then sink another off the east coast in the afternoon. Gilligan also warns that the shallow and warm waters around Australia’s north are unsuited to large nuclear submarines.
Deploying nuclear submarines far from Australia marks a return to the previously discredited doctrine of “forward defence” in South-East Asia that concentrated on a big British naval base in Singapore, which was swiftly overrun by the Japanese in 1942. When this doctrine failed during the Vietnam War, the Coalition government in the late 1960s adopted a “defence of Australia” doctrine, which survived until its recent abandonment. Patrick and other proponents of this latter doctrine expect a revised doctrine would put more emphasis on having medium-sized conventional submarines to help deny hostile forces access to the approaches to Australia, unless they could detect and destroy all the submarines, drones, planes and land-based missiles blocking their way.
Finally, from a defence perspective, much of the planning around nuclear submarines assumes – implausibly – that Chinese and US policies will proceed in a predictable way until past 2060. A purely geopolitical analysis, however, could easily underplay the disruptive role of climate change.
In purely geopolitical terms, the region may become more peaceful or more dangerous. The only urgency for Australia is to forget about nuclear submarines and get some conventionally powered submarines to enhance deterrence.
The National Party’s false claim about nuclear power
Barnaby Joyce’s meltdown over nuclear energy claim , ABC, Jacob Shteyman August 5, 2022,
With Australia’s future energy needs dominating parliament, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has claimed we are the only OECD country that does not produce nuclear power.
The claim is false. Eighteen of the 38 OECD countries do not produce nuclear power.
Mr Joyce made the claim during a debate on Labor’s Climate Change Bill 2022 on August 3. In outlining his support for nuclear power, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs asked: “Why is it that every OECD country produces nuclear power except us? Are we the wise ones and they’re all stupid?” (video mark 19:25).
Mr Joyce has been a supporter of nuclear power for a number of years while the coalition has looked into its implementation at several points in recent decades.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced on August 2 that the coalition would begin an internal process to examine the potential for nuclear power in Australia.
AAP FactCheck contacted Mr Joyce on the source of his claim but received no reply at the time of publication.
The OECD, which is made up of 38 countries, was established in 1961 as a forum for governments to “seek solutions to common economic and social problems”.
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency publishes an annual report showing nuclear energy generation by each member nation. The 2021 report (table 1.1, page 14) shows 18 of the 38 do not produce nuclear power.
They are Italy, Turkey, Poland, Ireland, Norway, Israel, Austria, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, New Zealand and Australia.
ANU nuclear expert Tony Irwin confirmed to AAP FactCheck in an email that Australia is not the only OECD nation to generate nuclear power.
A similar claim was made by Liberal MP Stuart Robert in an interview on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing on August 2. While responding to a question about the affordability of nuclear energy, he said: “I think we’re one of only, in fact we’re the only non-top 20 OECD country that doesn’t use nuclear power as part of its power mix” (video mark 9min).
A spokesman for Mr Robert clarified to AAP FactCheck that he meant to say Australia is the only top 20 OECD country without nuclear power.
Either way his claim is false……………………………..
The most recent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published last year, found global nuclear energy production is on the decline, despite a significant increase in China.
In 2019 AAP FactCheck debunked a similar claim by coalition MP Keith Pitt that Australia is the only OECD country not utilising nuclear energy.
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 