Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal
RENEW ECONOMY. Tristan Edis, Feb 21, 2025
This is part 4 of a five part series of articles examining the four accounting tricks that the Liberal-National Party employed in the costing of their energy plan to slow the roll-out of renewables and rely instead on nuclear power. The first article, which provides the overarching context is published here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.
These four accounting tricks act to mislead voters that the Liberal-National Party could lower energy bills through a shift to nuclear when in reality it is likely to increase power bills.
This article focuses on accounting trick three of four: Hide most of the cost of replacing coal with nuclear to outside the time period considered in the costing.
It’s very important to note that the Coalition’s costing of its electricity system cuts out in the year 2051. It only accounts for costs incurred between 2025 to 2051 and anything after that date is ignored.
The LNP’s claim of a 44% saving does not represent the cost of two alternative systems for achieving near zero emissions once they are both completed to see how nuclear might reduce the cost of the system.
Instead, a heavy influence on the cost estimates in the model is the degree to which the scenarios can delay incurring costs in replacing the old, highly polluting and likely to be increasingly unreliable coal power plants.
How is this a problem?
Coal power stations are much like a car – they are exposed to extreme heat, pressure and general mechanical stress that means they wear out and become unreliable as they get old. That’s physics.
Many of us will have experience with an old car that has got to the point where it increasingly encounters mechanical problems and the mechanic is warning us that it really needs some major repairs but these would cost more than the car is worth.
At this point many of us can be tempted to take a gamble by putting off such repairs, and go for temporary, less costly patch-ups and hope the car keeps going. That will be a lot cheaper than buying a new car, at least for as long as we can keep the old car going. But it comes with the risk that it could leave us stranded with a broken-down car at an extremely inconvenient point in time and even pose a danger to our safety and that of others.
The Coalition’s modeled plan chooses to take that gamble with our electricity system. But it doesn’t account for the risks and potentially extreme costs this involves if the gamble goes wrong.
Clare Savage, the head of the Australian Energy Regulator has repeatedly warned that failing to replace aging coal plants risks both power system reliability and also affordability observing, “Coal can’t last until you have nuclear power available.”……………………………………………………………………
Unless Peter Dutton has a secret plan to prioritise curtailment of rooftop solar in favour of coal generators, this is likely to get worse over time.
Now, the way that the consultant, Frontier, constructed Dutton’s costing is that they space out the cost of constructing new power stations as an annualised payment – a bit like how you’d purchase a new car not by paying for it upfront but rather by taking out a loan and then paying it back incrementally over time.
Except in this case the annualised payment for a new power station is spaced out over several decades and for nuclear it is 50 years. Meanwhile for the existing, very old power plants the original cost of constructing those plants is omitted from the annualised costs.
By pushing out the point at which they replace the old power stations with new ones until the 2040’s, the Coalition gets to hide much of the cost of the nuclear plants until towards the very back end of the projection period. We’ll still have to pay for these nuclear power stations well after 2051, but that’s conveniently left out of the costing period.
Meanwhile, in the scenario said to represent Labor Policy, the coal-fired power stations are replaced quite quickly, so the cost of the new, replacement power stations is taken into account across almost the entire time period considered in the model. …………………………
The nuclear plants aren’t really delivering any meaningful saving in the unit cost of energy relative to relying on renewables and storage. Instead, the savings are coming from the Liberal Party delaying the point at which the coal power plants are replaced. ………………………………………. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-accounting-trick-3-hide-the-costs-of-keeping-coal/
Dutton hints at privatising nuclear – one day
Phillip Coorey, 21 Feb 25
Peter Dutton has suggested his proposed nuclear power plants would one day be privatised, as he rejected the idea of the Albanese government taking an equity stake in the Whyalla steelworks.
With the $2.4 billion rescue plan for the steelworks in mid-north South Australia sparking a broader discussion about the re-nationalisation of business, the opposition leader said while he supported the plan, he derided the prospect of an equity stake in the Whyalla plant as “Whitlamesque”………………………….
Dutton said he was “completely opposed” to an equity stake.
“The prime minister can’t run a government – how can he run a steelworks? He’s now proposing to own an airline. I mean, this is Whitlamesque,” Dutton said.
Asked to explain why he opposed governments buying into troubled businesses but planned to spend $331 billion to build own and operate seven nuclear power plants, Dutton said there was a key difference in the nuclear energy would be a start-up industry.
“Nuclear power carries with it, from our country’s perspective, a zero-based knowledge, or a very low level of understanding, unlike in the United Kingdom or in Canada or in France or other parts of the world, including the United States,” he said.
“It’s obvious to me that there is greater reassurance in the public’s mind about the safety and the safe delivery of nuclear technology if it’s in government ownership.
“Now, it doesn’t need to be in government ownership forever.” https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-hints-at-privatising-nuclear-one-day-20250221-p5ldzj
Community consultation kicks off for submarine yard, but don’t mention nuclear
“South Australians should understand that AUKUS involves not only plans for the construction and sustainment of nuclear submarines at Osborne, but also for eventual decommissioning, storage and dismantling of those submarines on the banks of the Port Adelaide River, and indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste, most likely in SA.”
The Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) will today start information sessions for community members about its planned nuclear submarine construction yard project, but any concerns about nuclear issues are out of scope.
The first of four information sessions for community members interested in the Australia Submarine Agency’s (ASA) planned nuclear submarine construction yard at Osborne begin today.
The first – at the State Library on North Terrace – comes during a period of public consultation through which the ASA is receiving feedback from community members on its draft ‘Strategic Impact Assessment Report’ for the yard.
Until 17 March members of the public can submit comments about the 203-page draft, which considers the plan’s potential impact on the environment but notably rules nuclear issues as “outside the scope” of the plan for a shipyard to build nuclear submarines.
It follows an agreement struck in November 2023 between the ASA and the Environment and Water Minister – Tanya Plibersek – which specifically precluded all nuclear issues from the scope of the environmental assessment process.
“The operation, sustainment and decommissioning of the submarines built at the Osborne SCY is considered out of scope of the Strategic Assessment and will be managed via separate environmental assessment processes and approvals as necessary,” the agreement reads.
“The manufacture, delivery and subsequent operation of the reactor power module is considered outside of the scope of the Strategic Assessment, however the assembly into the submarine is included.”
What is included is the processing of steel, outfitting of submarine sections, manufacture of pipe and electrical components, the use of supporting facilities (guard houses, car parks, warehousing, office accommodation, etc.) and more.
The resulting draft environmental impact report, plus 754 pages of appendices, asserts that the impacts of the construction yard are “likely to be acceptable”.
It also confirms on page 156 that “no nuclear actions” are included in the scope of the draft and that “other activities are considered outside the scope of the strategic assessment and will be managed via separate assessment processes and approvals as necessary”.
Former Senator and submariner Rex Patrick – who plans on running for a South Australian seat at the next Federal Election as a member of Jacqui Lambie’s political party – said the consultation process was designed to “minimise public engagement”.
“This is a ‘strategic assessment’ of a nuclear facility in which everything nuclear is excluded. More attention is paid to the environmental impacts of car parks than nuclear reactors,” he told InDaily.
“South Australians should understand that AUKUS involves not only plans for the construction and sustainment of nuclear submarines at Osborne, but also for eventual decommissioning, storage and dismantling of those submarines on the banks of the Port Adelaide River, and indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste, most likely in SA.”
He added that the fact that Port Adelaide is yet to be visited by a nuclear-powered vessel because it has never been approved as a suitable location for such visits made the situation “an extraordinary state of affairs”.
“Whatever one thinks about AUKUS, it’s clear the environmental assessment has been rigged from the beginning.
“It’s been rigged by ASA with the connivance of Minister Plibersek to produce a predetermined outcome, opening the way for further stages of the project to be ticked off by Defence bureaucrats as they wish.
Those decisions will have consequences for South Australia that will last decades, hundreds and indeed thousands of years.”
Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #1: Assume you can halve the cost of nuclear power
they claim they will be ordering nuclear plants several years in the future after the nuclear industry has had the chance to improve on what have been some shocking project cost blow outs.
the nuclear industry in the western world has tended to experience escalating, not declining costs over time.
would have to commence the nuclear procurement process immediately.
Tristan Edis, Feb 19, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-accounting-trick-1-assume-you-can-halve-the-cost-of-nuclear-power/
This is part 2 of a five part series of articles examining the four accounting tricks that the Liberal-National Party employed in the costing of its energy plan to slow the roll-out of renewables and rely instead on nuclear power. The first article, which provides the overarching context is published here.
These four accounting tricks act to mislead voters that the Liberal-National Party could lower energy bills through a shift to nuclear when in reality it is likely to increase power bills.
This article focuses on accounting trick one of four: Assume a cost for nuclear reactors which is around half what nuclear reactors have actually cost to build across Europe and North America.
The most important point you need to understand is that the unit cost of energy the Liberal-National Party claims its future nuclear-underpinned power system will deliver – about $80 per megawatt-hour – is unrealistically low.
More realistic cost assumptions for nuclear would inflate the modelled cost of their system per MWh to $141.50 per MWh which is two-thirds higher than what they’ve estimated for the Labor Party scenario.
The Liberal-National Party’s costing has assumed that a nuclear reactor built today in Australia would cost $10,000 per kilowatt of capacity and that cost would decline by 1% per annum. The costing also assumes the first reactors would commence operation in 2036 followed by a rapid scale-up from 2039.
This is far below the real-world construction cost experience of nuclear reactors across Europe and North America in the past 20 years. This experience is detailed in a report I co-authored with energy analyst Johanna Bowyer from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis – Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills.
The table below [on original] lists the costs per kilowatt of plants which have proceeded to construction or managed to get to the point of a contracted price. Importantly you need to consider both the actual price paid to construction contractors (known as the ‘overnight cost’ – the cost if the project could literally be built within a night), but also a range of costs incurred by the owner in building the plant such as financing, known as the ‘all-in costs’.
These owner-incurred costs are very large, mainly because construction takes a long time and leads to significant bank debt interest bill accumulating over this period. The Liberal-National’s costing report does not explain what construction period it assumes for nuclear plants, which is a major black hole in their costing.
For a nuclear reactor with an all in cost of almost $29,000 per kilowatt to recover a commercial financing cost of 6% it would need to capture an electricity price close to $260 per MWh, and that’s if it could operate close to its full capacity without ramping down around solar generation.
If we multiply that out by the amount of electricity nuclear is expected to generate under the Liberal-National Party scenario, that gives us an annualised cost just for the nuclear component of their power system of $27 billion in 2051. We then need to add on top of that the costs to provide the remaining 60% or so of electricity not provided by nuclear.
Unfortunately, the inadequate transparency of the consultant’s report makes it difficult to disentangle these costs. Using the limited data the consultant has provided these non-nuclear costs appear to roughly lie somewhere around $8 to $10 billion.
So, if we use more realistic nuclear costs and then take the mid point for the non-nuclear costs of $9 billion, we end up with a total annualised cost of $36 billion for the complete system in 2051.
This is $7.5 billion higher than what the consultant estimates for the Labor scenario in 2051. It gives us an averaged cost per MWh of around $141.50, which is around two-thirds higher cost per MWh than the Labor scenario.
The Coalition likes to claim that the costs from these real-world nuclear power plant projects are somehow not relevant. This is because they claim they will be ordering nuclear plants several years in the future after the nuclear industry has had the chance to improve on what have been some shocking project cost blow outs.
There are just two fundamental problems with this.
The first is that the nuclear industry in the western world has tended to experience escalating, not declining costs over time. UK’s next planned nuclear project Sizewell C will represent the fifth and sixth European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design built by French corporate entities.
The latest cost reported by the UK’s Financial Times suggests it will cost around two and half times what the Coalition costing assumes at $24,540 per kW. That’s substantially more expensive than the first EPR they built in Finland – Olkiluoto 3.
The second problem is that for the Coalition to have any chance of meeting its time frame for the roll-out of nuclear it would have to commence the nuclear procurement process immediately. It won’t be able to wait for the nuclear industry to achieve what would amount to some incredible cost breakthroughs.
To explain why it is helpful to look at the Czech Republic experience, where they just very recently completed a nuclear tender process. The tender commenced in 2022 (preparation leading into the tender such as permitting and environmental impact assessments for the reactor site began several years before that but let’s leave that to one side).
Two years later they had selected the winner, being Korean Hydro and Nuclear Power. Yet Korean Hydro and Nuclear Power won’t be able to actually commence the real construction work until 2029. That’s because nuclear power plants are very complex, from both a physical and commercial perspective, and require considerable preparatory work. From there, they don’t expect the nuclear power plant to be fully operational until 2038. Note that this is for a site where preexisting nuclear power plants are already in place with all the associated supporting infrastructure that entails.
So, realistically, if the Coalition wanted to achieve the timelines outlined in its modelling, it really needed to commence the nuclear procurement tender process back several years ago when it was previously in government. It has no time available to wait around for the nuclear industry to come up with the cost breakthroughs its costing relies upon.
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides analysis and advice to assist clients make better informed investment, trading and policy decisions in energy and carbon abatement markets.
Peter Dutton sidesteps questions on state-funded nuclear disaster insurance plan
Albanese government also asked if it has considered nuclear insurance pool in context of Aukus nuclear-powered submarines.
Dan Jervis-Bardy Guardian 18 Feb 25
Peter Dutton has sidestepped questions about the potential need for a government-backed insurance pool for nuclear disasters after the industry’s peak body exposed a possible missing piece in his flagship energy plan.
The Insurance Council of Australia on Monday suggested the commonwealth may need to underwrite a scheme to cover communities against nuclear accidents.
“Around the world, nuclear has a special [insurance] cover that is usually done by governments,” the council’s chief executive, Andrew Hall, told ABC RN Breakfast.
“So it’s a conversation: if Australia turns to a net zero nuclear future, then we’re going to need to have a conversation with the government about a pool that would cover communities in the extremely unlikely event something would happen.”
Hall indicated such a scheme would be needed even if the Coalition’s nuclear plans never eventuated, to cover residents living near naval bases for the Aukus nuclear-powered submarines.
Neither the US nor UK has ever experienced a nuclear reactor accident on their submarines.
The insurance question has been largely overlooked in the debate about Dutton’s proposal to build nuclear reactors at seven sites. Attention has focused instead on the cost and timeline for starting an Australian nuclear power industry from scratch.
Countries with established nuclear industries have longstanding insurance schemes to cover personal injury and damage caused by nuclear disaster.
In the US, operators of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for US$500m (about A$786m) in private insurance for liability coverage for each reactor.
Asked on Monday if the Coalition had modelled the cost of a nuclear insurance scheme, Dutton did not respond to the question, instead reiterating the threat of market intervention if insurers did not lower premiums.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, struggled to answer similar questions when pressed repeatedly on ABC radio earlier in the day.
Insurance is not mentioned in either the Coalition’s six-page nuclear blueprint or in the Frontier Economics costings underpinning the proposal.
The Australia Institute thinktank in 2019 described nuclear power as “uninsurable”, warning that if operators were forced to cover the cost of accidents then the reactors would be “completely uncompetitive”.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, an Insurance Council of Australia spokesperson said it was common for insurance policies to exclude loss or damage caused by nuclear power.
“However, insurers in Europe, the US, and other countries where nuclear power generation is common have insurance mechanisms in place to cover liability concerns,” the spokesperson said.
“These include liability insurance pools, international agreements and conventions, and government programs to establish coverage and frameworks for nuclear liability insurance.”
Guardian Australia asked the defence minister, Richard Marles, if the government had considered a nuclear insurance pool in the context of Aukus.
In a statement, an Australian Submarine Agency spokesperson did not comment on the idea of an insurance pool……………………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/17/nuclear-disaster-insurance-pool-funding-peter-dutton-questioned-coalition-costing?fbclid=IwY2xjawIh-1VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVTDHY1ZfGqoH8vCwqMsqPd2DFwsmd0_nUu-wn14Gnes6DAWgXMuUXO-ow_aem_JRtSrA2wjsbbfPQiwb-vqg
Where’s the policy?’: Coalition criticised over ‘pipedream’ nuclear plan
Sky News Australia, 19 Feb 25, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/where-s-the-policy-coalition-criticised-over-pipedream-nuclear-plan/ar-AA1zjMZd
Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell believes the rate cut by the Reserve Bank “puts the focus” on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
The Reserve Bank has cut the official cash rate for the first time in more than four years, lowering it by 25 basis points, from 4.35 per cent to 4.10 per cent.
“I think this very much puts the focus on Peter Dutton now, I have to say,” Mr Clennell said.
“We’re at five minutes to midnight on an election now. Where’s the policy?
“They announced a nuclear policy – seven federal government-owned nuclear power plants, and then they kind of ran away from it.
“They’d have to convince a hostile Senate to end the moratorium.
“That looks like a pipedream.”
Dutton’s HALF-BAKED plans for dealing with global heating and Australia’s energy future.
Dr Tony Webb, 20 February 25
Coalition’s plans for our energy future including Nuclear power plants are based on:
Delivering half the electricity anticipated as needed to power homes and industry
and transition to zero carbon emissions.
Assuming cost of building nukes in Australia which has no experience of doing this
will be about half what the most nuke-favourable evidence world-wide from
countries that do have the experience suggests is needed.
Assuming these can be built in less than half the time evidence suggests they take to
build.
Ignoring the evidence that current official radiation-induced cancer-risk-estimates,
on which standards for worker OH&S are based, are less than half what the evidence
from nuclear power plant workers in Europe and North America suggests is the
inevitable and unavoidable reality. Also, ignoring that the cardio-vascular and heart
disease risk from such exposures is double that expected and the childhood
leukaemia risk in the community near these plants has been similarly under-
estimated.
Not to mention that the coalition’s costings ignore the long-term costs of
decommissioning these plants, the management, and (perhaps . . . . Dutton dream
on!) eventually finding a solution for long-term storage (never ‘disposal’) of the
highly radioactive wastes –
Nor to mention the fact that state and federal legislation currently prohibits such
nuclear power plants and is unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future.
And – despite this overwhelming evidence that the whole silly idea is half-baked – in
fact a smokescreen for continuing climate denial and extending use of polluting and
planet life-threatening fossil fuels, inface of this the Coalition doubles down on it
with backing from sections of the media and the fossil fuel lobby.
And finally, we are so far only half-baked. Global warming is passing the climate
catastrophe 1.5 degree centigrade target and now heading to at least 3 degrees and
possibly more.
Australian nuclear news headlines 17 – 24 February
Headlines as they come in:
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #4: Assume climate change has no cost.
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal.
- Carbon time bomb: Dutton’s nuclear plan will blow up Paris and emissions targets, CCA says.
- Dirty deed: Dutton’s nuclear scheme locks in 20 years of higher climate pollution
- New report confirms nuclear fears: Higher bills, higher emissions
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal
- Dutton hints at privatising nuclear – one day.
- Where’s the policy?’: Coalition criticised over ‘pipedream’ nuclear plan
- Community consultation kicks off for submarine yard, but don’t mention nuclear.
- Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #1: Assume you can halve the cost of nuclear power.
- Dutton’s HALF-BAKED plans for dealing with global heating and Australia’s energy future.
- Before we decide where to dump nuclear waste, let’s answer the bigger questions,
- Peter Dutton sidesteps questions on state-funded nuclear disaster insurance plan.
- The election could be called any day – but Peter Dutton still hasn’t explained how his nuclear proposal will work.
- Taxpayers should not foot the bill for nuclear risk.
- Nuclear gamble is an economic wrecking ball.
- The four accounting tricks behind Peter Dutton’s nuclear cost claims.
Before we decide where to dump nuclear waste, let’s answer the bigger questions
February 19, 2025 AIMN Editorial, Australians for Affordable Energy, https://theaimn.net/before-we-decide-where-to-dump-nuclear-waste-lets-answer-the-bigger-questions/
Australians for Affordable Energy is urging caution following calls for South Australia to become a nuclear power hub and waste storage site, warning fundamental questions about nuclear remain unanswered.
Alexander Downer’s comments advocating for nuclear power plants in South Australia and positioning the state as a nuclear waste storage site are deeply concerning given there has been no comprehensive discussion around nuclear power.
The nuclear debate must go beyond location discussion and first address economic and logistic concerns, Australians for Affordable Energy spokesperson Jo Dodds said.
“Before we even talk about where to dump nuclear waste, we need to ask some hard questions. How much will nuclear really cost Australian taxpayers? What will it do to energy prices and the cost of living? How long will it take to build? Who funds insurance?” Ms Dodd said.
“There are global examples of nuclear projects that have blown out in cost and time frames and just fallen over, leaving consumers to foot the bill. Australians deserve transparency on these issues before any commitments are made.”
The practical implications of nuclear power for everyday Australians remain unclear. Australians deserve a full and open discussion of nuclear power’s real impacts rather than ideological endorsements from political figures.
“We know nuclear energy requires massive upfront investment, long construction times, intensive oversight, expensive insurance, and creates long-term waste management challenges. These factors could seriously impact affordability – for the country and individuals who will have to pay the bills since private investment won’t go near nuclear,” Ms Dodds said.
“We need an evidence-based national conversation about our energy future before committing to specific locations for waste storage. We can’t afford to let political enthusiasm override economic and practical considerations.
“If politicians are serious about nuclear, let’s see the full breakdown of costs, risks and alternatives before making any decisions.”
AFAE warns against locking into costly or uncertain energy options and calls for a transparent review of nuclear power in Australia before any site is considered for waste storage.
The election could be called any day – but Peter Dutton still hasn’t explained how his nuclear proposal will work.
Adam Morton Guardian, 18 Feb 25
His claim that nuclear power would lead to cheaper bills in the near future isn’t supported by the modelling released to back it up. But the soundbite survives.
The election is just weeks away and Peter Dutton has still not answered any of the key questions about how his nuclear energy pitch would work beyond naming the seven sites where the Coalition says it might eventually – mostly in the 2040s – use taxpayer funding to build power plants.
He is rarely even asked. Polling suggests he has a reasonable chance of moving into the Lodge in a few weeks.
If he’s good as his word, Dutton would attempt to put the brakes on investment in large-scale solar and windfarms and battery storage, which has just taken off and begun to approach the pace needed to get close to Labor’s goal of 82% renewable energy by 2030 and replace a fleet of coal-fired power plants nearing the end of their lives.
The election could be called any day – but Peter Dutton still hasn’t explained how his nuclear proposal will work
His claim that nuclear power would lead to cheaper bills in the near future isn’t supported by the modelling released to back it up. But the soundbite survives …
- Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
- Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
Tue 18 Feb 2025 01.00 AEDTShare283
The election is just weeks away and Peter Dutton has still not answered any of the key questions about how his nuclear energy pitch would work beyond naming the seven sites where the Coalition says it might eventually – mostly in the 2040s – use taxpayer funding to build power plants.
He is rarely even asked. Polling suggests he has a reasonable chance of moving into the Lodge in a few weeks.
If he’s good as his word, Dutton would attempt to put the brakes on investment in large-scale solar and windfarms and battery storage, which has just taken off and begun to approach the pace needed to get close to Labor’s goal of 82% renewable energy by 2030 and replace a fleet of coal-fired power plants nearing the end of their lives.
It would require billions of dollars of taxpayer funding to maintain the old, run-down coal plants in an effort to keep them functioning for longer. Experts say there is no guarantee it would succeed.
Over the past year, coal-fired power on the national grid has on average cost 2 ½ times more for each megawatt hour of electricity than solar energy and 60% more than wind energy. Gas-fired power was even more expensive – about twice as much as coal.
Dutton’s claim that his plan would lead to cheaper power bills in the near future isn’t supported by the modelling that was released to back it up. But the soundbite survives.
The Coalition’s approach of burning more coal and gas for longer would also substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity grid for at least the next two decades, just as scientists are stressing – again – the need for urgent action and investors are highlighting the potential benefits of developing green industries that may no longer see a future in the US.
Dutton appears immune to these arguments. He has opposed and said he would review, and possibly abolish, measures introduced to limit climate pollution from heavy industry and transport (which, together, are responsible for more than 50% of Australia’s emissions). Both skyrocketed in the Coalition’s near decade in power last time around………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/feb/18/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-soundbite-australia-election
Nuclear Gamble is an Economic Wrecking Ball
February 17, 2025 AIMN , Kate Hook
Nuclear gamble is an economic wrecking ball – Lithgow and the Central West deserve better
Independent candidate for Calare, Kate Hook, has slammed the Coalition’s nuclear proposal, calling it an economic wrecking ball that will waste billions, push up power prices, and stall job creation in regional Australia.
“Energy experts, market operators and Australia’s leading economists have been clear – Australia can achieve a secure, reliable, and affordable power system without nuclear power,” Ms. Hook said. “The Coalition’s plan is a costly distraction, and I will not support it.”
“The communities that will suffer most from this reckless policy are the very ones that need investment in real, job-creating industries right now – not in 15 or 20 years.”
Ms. Hook called out the nuclear plan for what it is – a stalling tactic to prop up fossil fuel operators, keep government subsidies flowing to outdated industries, and leave Australian taxpayers to foot the bill.
Nuclear reactors take decades to build and cost tens of billions of dollars – public money that could instead be spent on renewables, storage, and grid upgrades today. By the time nuclear power could even begin operating, Australia’s energy system will already be overwhelmingly powered by cheaper, cleaner alternatives.
“We are at 40% renewable energy now and in the last 6 years alone, we’ve already added over 46 TWh (Terra Watt hours) of annual renewable energy generation to the grid. This number might not mean much to most people but it’s huge! It’s the equivalent of six nuclear power stations. And we did it in six years – not 15 or 20 years,” Ms Hook said.
Renewables and Storage: Reliable, Affordable, and Ready Now
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has mapped out the most efficient path forward—and nuclear isn’t part of it. The smart, cost-effective way to secure Australia’s energy future is through renewables, backed by battery storage, pumped hydro, and modern grid technology.
Big battery projects like South Australia’s Hornsdale Power Reserve are already proving their worth. Originally built with a capacity of 129 MWh – enough to power 30,000 homes for a day – it has since expanded to 194 MWh, providing power to 50,000 homes and stabilising the grid within milliseconds during sudden demand spikes.
“This fast response prevents blackouts and keeps energy prices stable—something nuclear power just can’t do,” Ms. Hook said.
Pumped hydro projects like Snowy 2.0 will ensure around-the-clock reliability. When completed, its 2.2 GW capacity will generate enough electricity to power three million homes during peak demand – like when air conditioning use surges on a hot summer evening.
With 350,000 MWh of storage, Snowy 2.0 could power 500,000 homes for an entire week or every home in Sydney for three days.
“We don’t need to waste time and money on nuclear power when we have already invested in proven, ready-to-go solutions that lower energy bills and create jobs right now,” Ms. Hook said.
Lithgow Needs Smart Investments, Not Costly Distractions
Kate Hook recognises that Lithgow has been at the heart of Australia’s energy production for generations. With coal mines closing and Mt Piper Power Station scheduled to shut in 2042, Lithgow needs a real plan for its future – not a decades-long delay.
“Lithgow deserves practical, affordable, and proven energy solutions – not a risky, drawn-out experiment that will leave taxpayers footing the bill for decades,” Ms. Hook said.
Beyond spiralling costs and construction delays, nuclear power comes with long-term risks that regional communities like Lithgow will be forced to bear. The Coalition has no plan for nuclear waste storage, no consultation with impacted communities, and no clear strategy for financing these massive projects.
……………………………………….“Nuclear is a dead-end policy – an economic wrecking ball that will drive up power prices and leave communities paying the price,” Ms. Hook said. “Instead of pouring billions into an outdated, high-risk technology, we should be investing in industries that will deliver affordable energy and secure jobs for Lithgow and all of Calare.”
A Clear Choice on Election Day
With voters in Calare facing a critical decision at the next election, Kate Hook urged the community to reject the Coalition’s nuclear “plan” and back a renewables-led future.
“This election is about who we trust to deliver cheaper energy, good jobs, and a secure future for our region,” Ms. Hook said. “Nuclear power in Australia is an expensive fantasy which is not backed by economic or energy experts – renewables are the real opportunity for Calare.”…………………………. https://theaimn.net/nuclear-gamble-is-an-economic-wrecking-ball/
A dramatic development in the Ukraine situation.
18 February 2025 https://theaimn.net/a-dramatic-development-in-the-ukraine-situation/
The shut-down Chernobyl nuclear reactor was hit by a drone on 14th February, and its outer covering was breached. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was quick to gloss over the impact from the latest incident involving the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear reactor – ” Radiation levels inside and outside the so-called New Safe Confinement building “remain normal and stable,”….. and there are no reports of any casualties or radiation leak.”
To be fair, the IAEA did not attribute blame to Russia. Le Monde stated that the cause was a Russian Shahed drone, armed with a high-explosive warhead. So, it actually does look as if the offending drone came from Russia. But that is not certain. However, as far as the Western media goes – the issue is being covered as a deliberate attack by Russia. Youtube after Youtube video, article after article, blames Russia, and repeats Zelensky’s claims –“This is a terrorist attack for the entire world.” Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security Conference accusing Russia of a deliberate attack. Even if it was a Russian drone, there remains the possibility that this was a mistake, rater than intentional. What would Russia have to gain by this? Cui bono?
This event is significant in two ways – First – it could throw a spanner in the works of the current discussions on ending the war in Ukraine . These peace discussion are a whole nother story. Donald Trump is no doubt looking for a way for USA business interests to grab Ukraine resources as one large part of a peace deal in which Russia keeps its invaded territory. Zelensky’s presidency sort of ended on 20 May 2024 – he stays in power because it is war-time – which may well be part of his desire to keep the ear going, no matter what the cost. Zelensky seems to have cast some sort of mesmerising spell over Europe – depicting the Russian bear salivating to gobble up Europe. Good loyal Westerners seem pretty much obligated to oppose Donald Trump on all matters. However a plan to allow some concessions to Russia is a militarily reasonable way to end this war.
Secondly, it could really demonstrate the hypocrisy of the IAEA and its Director Rafael Grossi about nuclear safety
Does anyone really think that this Chernobyl incident is over? All sorted?
“Flames are still raging inside the Chernobyl nuclear station after multiple fires yesterday.” – Luke Alsford and Gergana Krasteva, Metro UK, February 16, 2025
Alsford and Krasteva set out in chilling (perhaps that’s not the right word) detail, the efforts going on, in extreme weather conditions, to prevent a disaster at the power plant, firefighters battling the blaze around the clock. The reactor’s containment shell. now has a 314 square foot gash. With the hermetic seal broken, the ventilation system is affected, and the radiation level will increase.
Those courageous workers at the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear power plant will probably get those fires out before it all gets much, much worse. And mend the hole in the containment shell. And the IAEA and everyone else will breathe sighs of relief. Until the next nuclear near-miss.
Flames are still raging inside the Chernobyl nuclear station after multiple fires yesterday.
Three smoldering fires were detected earlier this morning, forcing teams to jump into action to prevent a disaster at the power plant.
Ukraine’s state agency on exclusion zone management confirmed that no release of radioactive material has been reported yet.
The plant was hit on Friday by a drone carrying a high-explosive warhead, according to Ukraine, 38 years after the nuclear explosion at the site…..
Firefighters continue to battle the blaze round the clock in challenging weather conditions, admitted the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The plant’s fourth reactor now has a 314 square foot gash after the drone strike.
Although no rise in radiation has been reported yet, an expert issued a frightening warning about how Russia’s attack will soon affect nearby radioactivity
Dr Olga Kosharna, founder of the Anti-Crisis Expert Nuclear Centre of Ukraine, said: ‘The hermetic seal has been broken.
‘It is clear that the ventilation systems will [work] differently and the radiation level will increase.
‘But I think that it will not go beyond the industrial site and the exclusion zone.
Chernobyl’s reactors are covered by an outer dome to prevent radioactive leakage after the 1986 disaster – the world’s worst civilian nuclear accident – which sent pollution spewing across Europe.
Video footage shows how the explosion blew a hole in the dome at 1.50am on Friday, before a fire then broke out.
An open fire on the roof structure – officially called the New Safe Confinement (NSC) – was swiftly put out by first responders.
However smouldering fires remain inside the 20ft diameter hole.
The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] said: ‘The ongoing efforts to put out and prevent the spread of any remaining fires – apparently fuelled by inflammable material in the roof cladding – have delayed work to start repairing the damage.’
The organisation’s director Rafael Mariano Grossi added: ‘This was clearly a very serious incident, with a drone hitting and damaging a large protective structure at a major nuclear site.
‘As I have stated repeatedly during this devastating war, attacking a nuclear facility is an absolute no-go, it should never happen.’
Grossi also warned of an ‘increase in military activity in the area around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
‘The IAEA remains committed to doing everything we can to help prevent a nuclear accident. Judging by recent events, nuclear safety remains very much under threat.’…………………………….
Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security Conference yesterday, accusing Russia of flaming the conflict with the alleged drone attack……………………………… https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/16/nuclear-expert-issues-chernobyl-update-emerges-fires-still-burning-22567966/
The four accounting tricks behind Peter Dutton’s nuclear cost claims
So according to the data within the Liberal-National Party’s costing document, Dutton’s power system underpinned by nuclear will generate electricity at 6% lower cost than one that doesn’t rely on nuclear. It leads you to wonder – how on earth did Dutton come up with it being 44% cheaper?
There are four accounting tricks behind the 44% cheaper claim which mean that, in reality, Peter Dutton’s plan is not cheaper and is far more risky.
Tristan Edis, Feb 18, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-four-accounting-tricks-behind-peter-duttons-nuclear-cost-claims/
The Liberal-National Coalition claims it has found the solution to bring down energy bills – slow the growth of renewable energy and roll-out nuclear power.
According to Liberal Leader Peter Dutton, their plan for a power system including a significant role for nuclear will be 44% cheaper than a system relying predominantly on renewables. This claim is based on energy market economic modelling it released just before Christmas, prepared by an economic consultant – Frontier Economics.
A range of energy analysts and economists have criticised the Coalition’s claims, finding an array of problems with how this number was derived (see the list at the bottom of this article for examples). Nonetheless this hasn’t made any difference to Peter Dutton’s claims, and earlier this month he was on ABC television telling viewers that he had a plan to deliver voters 44% cheaper power bills.
However, you don’t need to be any kind of expert analyst or economist to work out that the claim nuclear will deliver you 44% lower bills is a bit like a wrinkle cream claiming it will make you look 44% younger.
And in the end, though it might not be obvious, this is really about whether Liberal-National Party have discovered a miraculous cure for aging, and quite potentially the laws of physics. It isn’t really about nuclear.
To explain this you need to do a very simple calculation:
1) Get out a basic calculator.
2) Into this calculator type in the $20.5 billion dollars that the Liberal-National Party costing says will be the annual price of their power system once all the nuclear power plants are complete in 2051 (see Figure 12 on page 38 of the consultant’s report).
3) Then divide this cost by the total amount of electricity that system will deliver in 2051 after deducting generation from energy storage, which is roughly 255 million megawatt-hours (see table 8 on page 34).
That gives you the cost of energy under their system of around $80.30 per megawatt-hour.
Now do the same thing for the power system which Dutton claims to represent Labor’s policy (by the way it’s not really Labor’s policy, it’s the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change modelling scenario). So divide $28.5 billion (Figure 12 on page 38 of consultant’s report) by 333 million megawatt-hours (table 5 on page 28).
That gives a cost of energy of close to $85.50 per megawatt-hour for the so called Labor system.
So according to the data within the Liberal-National Party’s costing document, Dutton’s power system underpinned by nuclear will generate electricity at 6% lower cost than one that doesn’t rely on nuclear. It leads you to wonder – how on earth did Dutton come up with it being 44% cheaper?
There are four accounting tricks behind the 44% cheaper claim which mean that, in reality, Peter Dutton’s plan is not cheaper and is far more risky. The four tricks involve the following:
1) It doesn’t reflect the real cost of building nuclear – the Liberal Party costing assumes a cost for nuclear power plants which is around half what nuclear reactors have actually cost to build. Once you use the average construction cost and construction time of real world nuclear plants, the cost per unit of energy for the Liberal-National Party’s power system is two thirds more expensive than what is estimated for Labor’s scenario, once the system is fully built.
2) Only considers electricity costs while ignoring the cost of petrol and gas – The costing omits much of the costs of energy to heat buildings, fuel vehicles and power industry in the Liberal-National party scenario because they seem to prefer that we continue to heavily rely on petrol to fuel our cars and gas instead of electricity to heat homes and run factories.
Meanwhile, a lot of these costs are included in the scenario for Labor, where electricity has largely replaced the use of petrol and gas for fuelling our vehicles and heating buildings and industrial processes. By just accounting for the 203 billion litres of extra petrol consumption in the Liberal-National scenario the claimed 44% saving evaporates and instead you find their energy system is $80 billion more expensive that what they claim is the cost for the Labor scenario.
3) Tries to hide the cost of replacing old coal power stations with nuclear to outside the time period covered by the costing. The costing only includes costs incurred between 2025 and 2051, anything beyond that point is ignored. Under the costing of the Liberal-National Party’s scenario they’ve pushed most of the costs of replacing old coal power stations to outside the 2025-2051 time period. Meanwhile, the costing ignores the risks and potential large costs associated with extended reliance on increasingly unreliable old power stations.
4) Assumes climate change isn’t an important and urgent problem – The modelling consultant has openly acknowledged the availability of economic data that would allow them to cost the damage from carbon emissions. But instead of using this data from the Australian Energy Regulator, they instead completely ignore the damage costs from the higher emissions under the Coalition’s preferred scenario of extended reliance on coal, petrol and gas.
If the consultant had adhered to the basics of first year economics based on work published back in 1920, and placed a cost on carbon in line with AER guidance, it would add $392 billion to the Liberal-National scenario compared to just $75 billion to the Labor scenario. If you add that to the extra cost of petrol then the Liberal-National scenario is almost $400 billion more expensive than the scenario claimed to be Labor’s across 2025 to 2051. That’s even if we ignore the extra costs associated with accounting tricks 1 and 3.
Over the next few days I’ll go into each one of these four accounting tricks in more detail with an article explaining how that trick acts to mislead voters and means that energy consumers would most likely face higher, not lower energy bills.
This isn’t intended to suggest that the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Step Change scenario (said to represent Labor policy) should go unquestioned. The future is full of uncertainties and we need to examine a range of options for how we can sensibly lower emissions while maintaining reliable and affordable energy suppliers.
Unfortunately, the suggestion that Nuclear Power is the easy fix simply ignores the incredible difficulties and costs Europe, North America and Japan have experienced with Nuclear Power.
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides analysis and advice to assist clients make better informed investment, trading and policy decisions in energy and carbon abatement markets.
Dutton’s nuclear disaster: Cheap lies and a $20 billion deficit
By Steve Bishop | 17 February 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-nuclear-disaster-cheap-lies-and-a-20-billion-deficit,19447
The Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement comes with a massive price tag but is also built on disinformation, writes Steve Bishop.
A $20 BILLION deficit and cheap lies mean that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton‘s attempt to “extend the life” of coal-fired power plants with a nuclear “fix” has come spectacularly unstuck.
Dutton and the Coalition stand condemned for presenting the public with a shoddy, ill-prepared policy on a multi-billion dollar project that the Climate Council warns could risk power shortages in the 2030s.
On 13 December last year, Mr Dutton promised:
SEARCH
Daily Telegraph tries and fails to stage antisemitic incident
Share the love — Gift an IA Subscription!
Dutton isn’t just exploiting antisemitism — he’s driving it
Dutton’s vow to slash public servant numbers another Coalition disaster
The Apprentice tells Trump’s supervillain origin story
Daily Telegraph tries and fails to stage antisemitic incident
Share the love — Gift an IA Subscription!
Dutton isn’t just exploiting antisemitism — he’s driving it
Dutton’s vow to slash public servant numbers another Coalition disaster
The Apprentice tells Trump’s supervillain origin story
Politics Opinion
Dutton’s nuclear disaster: Cheap lies and a $20 billion deficit
By Steve Bishop | 17 February 2025, 3:00pm | 0 comments |
The Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement comes with a massive price tag but is also built on disinformation, writes Steve Bishop.
A $20 BILLION deficit and cheap lies mean that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton‘s attempt to “extend the life” of coal-fired power plants with a nuclear “fix” has come spectacularly unstuck.
Dutton and the Coalition stand condemned for presenting the public with a shoddy, ill-prepared policy on a multi-billion dollar project that the Climate Council warns could risk power shortages in the 2030s.
On 13 December last year, Mr Dutton promised:
‘By 2050, our plan will deliver up to 14 GW of nuclear energy, guaranteeing consistent and stable electricity for all Australians.’
Yet the Coalition’s costings report, released on the same day, repeatedly deals with only 13 GW.
That’s 1,000 MW short of the target.
Three small modular reactors (SMRs) producing 345 MW each would be needed to make up the shortfall at a cost of almost $20 billion based on the US$4 billion (AU$6.2 billion) price of Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien‘s favoured Natrium reactor.
Just to put this critical mess in focus — that’s twenty thousand million dollars. It makes a mockery of Dutton’s claim that “the Liberal Party has always been a better economic manager…”
And then come the cheap lies.
Mr Dutton claims:
“…electricity is cheaper where there is a presence of nuclear energy. That is a fact.”
No, it’s not a fact. It is a lie.
Ted O’Brien has repeatedly talked about Ontario as having cheap power because it has nuclear reactors.
But Quebec’s electricity prices are far cheaper than Ontario’s. Quebec closed its only nuclear power plant in 2012.
Not only that, but Quebec’s power company paid the provincial government a dividend of $2.5 billion in 2023/24.
On the other hand, the Ontario Government pays subsidies of up to $720 a year to families of four earning less than $65,000 a year.
Coalition frontbencher Dan Tehan says nuclear power contributes to low power prices in Tennessee but Electric Choice shows that this month Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah all have lower power prices — and none of them has nuclear power,
Dutton claims “Australian families at the moment are paying some of the highest energy costs in the world” and they would enjoy ‘massive savings’ if we had nuclear power.
The Opposition Leader also says it’s a fact that countries such as the UK and France, with their nuclear power, have cheaper power prices than Australia.
Here’s the lie exposed again. It’s a complete meltdown. According to Statista, power prices in the UK and France are more expensive than in Australia.
Here’s another lie.
Mr Dutton asserts:
‘…nuclear energy… has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world…’
Slovenia has a nuclear power plant but is one of the most expensive providers in Europe with Switzerland‘s nuclear power prices not far behind.
Slovakia generates half its power from nuclear plants but power prices are more than twice what Norwegians, with no nuclear power, pay.
Then Dutton has the chutzpah to accuse the Government of lying when it points out that nuclear power is the most expensive type of energy.
In the 2021 edition of its annual cost report, Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that the levelised cost of electricity from new nuclear plants will be $131–204 per megawatt-hour (MWh), whereas newly constructed utility-scale solar and wind plants produce electricity at somewhere between $26–50MWh.
An independent report commissioned by the Clean Energy Council and conducted by Egis, a leading global consulting, construction and engineering firm, has confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found nuclear power in Australia could result in electricity bills rising by $665 a year on average
And the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has found:
‘…building nuclear reactors in Australia would cost at least twice as much as renewable power…’
No wonder that Coalition whistleblower Senator Matt Canavan revealed the nuclear policy is no more than a fix. It doesn’t even deserve a half-life.
The past week in nuclear news
Some bits of good news. The Revival of Germany’s Carbon-Sequestering Peatlands. Australia’s renewable energy growth doubles in six months. Three good things: projects clearing up junk that’s hidden from view.
TOP STORIES. Netanyahu’s Quest to Attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with the ‘Mother of all Bombs’.
Anatomy of an AI Coup.
The Pentagon Is Recruiting Elon Musk To Help Them Win a Nuclear War.
High-Explosive Drone Pierces Shell Of Chernobyl Nuclear Plant At Very Moment Trump Pushes Ukraine Toward Peace.
Climate. World’s sea-ice falls to record low. Two-thirds of Americans still believe climate change is impacting the Earth, despite what Trump contends.
Noel’s notes. Small Nuclear Reactors: Big safety problems, and who pays the piper? “Jobs Jobs Jobs!” screams the nuclear lobby.
AUSTRALIA. Dutton’s nuclear disaster: Cheap lies and a $20 billion deficit. Why are young people like this 18-year-old fronting the pro-nuclear push in Australia? American or Trump’s values, or are they the same? Nuclear advocates: Splitting atoms and spinning agendas. Australia’s technocratic drive to nuclear ignorance. more Australian nuclear news headlines at https://antinuclear.net/2025/02/13/australian-nuclear-news-10-17-february/ 22 February – protest AUKUS this Sat near Pt Adelaide event https://www.facebook.com/events/13888580289
NUCLEAR ITEMS
ART and CULTURE.
Why Welsh speakers oppose Wylfa nuclear plant.
ECONOMICS.
- The £40bn nuclear project at risk of becoming another British white elephant. ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/02/12/2-a-the-40bn-nuclear-project-at-risk-of-becoming-another-british-white-elephant/
- Can the nuclear industry find a better way to build?
- Octopus Energy launches renewables investment platform for consumers.
- South Korea increases support for domestic nuclear industry.
- NUCLEAR BRIBERY: Nuclear Waste Services funds Cumbrian community projects.
- Marketing. India PM Modi ends foreign tour with nuclear deals in pipeline.
| EMPLOYMENT. US government tries to rehire nuclear staff it fired days ago.There really ARE necessary nuclear industry jobs – IN DEMOLISHING NUCLEAR REACTORS! |
| ENERGY Prioritizing nuclear power and natural gas over renewable energy is a risky move for Ontario’s energy future. Green power– not for us? |
| ENVIRONMENT ‘Nothing prepared us for Sizewell C devastation‘. Nuclear Free Local Authorities back petition to save fish at Hinkley C. Nuclear waste plan ‘would scar Lincolnshire Wolds‘. |
EVENTS.
- 19 February – WEBINAR. International Update: Nuclear Waste Burial Programs in the UK, US and EU | Nuclear Waste Online 2025.
- 21 February WEBINAR . What Scientists Are Telling Us About Radiation that Nuclear Boosters Won’t.
- 22 February Drone Wars Online Day Conference.
- 23 February GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION TO CLOSE BASES. – https://worldbeyondwar.org/closebases/
- Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons .
| HEALTH. Doctors fear health fallout from nuclear energy plans |
| MEDIA. Media must unshackle itself. |
| OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR Opposition mounts to planned nuclear plant as Starmer confirms new policy of ‘Build, baby, build’. Sizewell C campaigners slammed “clueless” Government. |
| SAFETY.Oops! Trump accidentally fired hundreds of federal workers who maintain our nuclear weapons. Warning sent about need for strategic policing reform to address security of SMRs. Safety Issues and Impact on Marine Environment of Extension of British Nuclear Plant Lifespan Queried by NGO. Would a fallout shelter really protect you in a nuclear blast?‘ Deeply Concerned’ Dems Want to Know If DOGE Can Access Nuclear Weapons Data. Incident. A drone pierced the outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant. Radiation levels are normal. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Engineer who worked on Hinkley Point C nuclear project quizzed on suspicion of being a Russian spy, The Coventry experiment: why were Indian women in Britain given radioactive food without their consent? Secret terror blueprints for US NSC to ‘help Ukraine resist’ exposed. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. NFLAs endorse international appeal for justice over French nuclear tests. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES .A New Military-Industrial Complex Arises. Trump wants Russia, China to stop making nuclear weapons, so all can cut defence spending by half. Trump Promises Billions in Defense Cuts. Will U.S. resume nuclear testing? America’s nuclear gamble: The dangerous push to resume atmospheric testing. Trident nuclear submarine project rated “unachievable” third year running. UK Government urged to scrap nuclear weapons ‘once and for all’. |
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 