Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Briefing paper from UK trip shows nuclear waste discussions held, as location for AUKUS submarine waste remains undecided

ABC News, Stateline, Leah MacLennan, 31 Jan 25

In short:

Former senator Rex Patrick says documents show SA’s Defence Industries Minister met with a defence company in the UK for the “specific purpose of being briefed” on the dismantling of nuclear reactors and the waste associated.

Mr Mullighan says those topics were not the “focus” of the discussions.

What’s next? 

Legislation passed last year allowing nuclear waste to be stored at Osborne, but the government says a location for any high-level waste storage is still to be decided.

A former senator has sounded the alarm over documents he says point to government discussions about the defueling and dismantling of nuclear submarines at South Australia’s Osborne shipyards.

Rex Patrick was a Navy submariner, entered the Senate as a replacement for Nick Xenophon, and is now running for the Senate again as a Jacqui Lambie Network candidate.

He has obtained documents through freedom of information (FOI) that show South Australia’s Treasurer and Defence Industries Minister Stephen Mullighan met with defence company Babcock during a visit to the United Kingdom late last year.

“What the FOI shows is that the Treasurer Mr Mullighan met with Babcock for the specific purpose of being briefed on the dismantling of nuclear reactors and waste associated with those nuclear reactors,” Mr Patrick said.

The documents include a briefing paper for the meeting, which said the objective of the visit was to “discuss Babcock’s approach to nuclear powered submarine sustainment, defueling and disposal … seek information on Babcock’s experience in radioactive waste management/nuclear decommissioning,” and “discuss Babcock’s approach to nuclear powered submarine social license”.

Mr Patrick said the documents show the government was exploring the idea of dismantling the submarines’ nuclear reactors at Osborne.

He has called for more transparency and discussion with the public about what is being planned for the site under the AUKUS agreement.

“I’ve been looking at AUKUS and issues of nuclear waste for about three years and what I’ve found is that you really have to pull teeth to get access to information about this sort of stuff,” Mr Patrick said.

“Any decisions being made about this are not decisions that just affect this term of government or the next, they are decisions that will affect South Australians for tens of thousands of years.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Decommissioning still decades away

Australia’s first nuclear submarine will not arrive until the early 2030s, when the US plans to sell the government three Virginia Class boats.

The Virginia Class have a life span of more than 30 years, meaning their defueling and decommissioning is still decades away.

Rex Patrick argues that does not mean decisions can be delayed, because signing up to AUKUS is also signing up to a nuclear industry and dealing with the waste they will ultimately produce.

“Decisions around high-level nuclear waste are decisions that last for generations upon generations,” Mr Patrick said.

“They are not decisions that should simply be made and presented as a fait accompli by a government.”……………………………………………………………………..

Federal laws mean nuclear waste can be stored at Osborne

In October last year, legislation passed federal parliament that will allow for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste at Osborne.

The law does not define what level of waste can be stored there, but the federal government has given assurances that it will only be low-level waste.

Those assurances are not enough to allay concerns from the local community group that has branded itself ‘Port Adelaide Community Opposing Aukus’.

“One of our major concerns is that waste will be literally transported down Victoria Road, which alongside of it is a residential area,” group member Eileen Darley said.

“We’re going to be a docking point, or a gateway if you like, to some as yet unknown permanent nuclear dump somewhere.”………………………………………………

Major delays to UK decommissioning

The United Kingdom has had a fleet of nuclear submarines since the 1960s, but has faced multiple challenges decommissioning and disposing of boats that are out of service.

More than 20 decommissioned submarines are awaiting disposal at dockyards in Scotland and England, with half still waiting to be defueled.

The oldest, HMS Swiftsure, left service in 1992 and Babcock is now working with authorities to dismantle it, with an aim to be finished by the end of next year.

Overall it is a program that will cost billions of pounds.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/documents-show-nuclear-waste-discussions-aukus-submarines/104874852

January 31, 2025 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

Is the world going nuclear? The hope and hype of nuclear as a climate solution.

“The industry is having some very good rhetoric, but it’s having a very poor reality. We’ve seen 30 countries say that they will triple nuclear (power) by 2050; we’ve seen 125 say they will triple renewables by 2045.”

By political reporter Tom Lowrey, 26 Jan 25

In short: 

Momentum behind nuclear power as a part of the global solution to climate change has been growing, with the technology gaining more attention and interest.

But climate advocates point out that nuclear still has a poor reputation for being delivered late and hugely over budget.

What’s next?

The Coalition will continue to point to any international shifts towards nuclear power, to make its case for Australia’s adoption of the technology.

It’s been a difficult few decades for nuclear power. 

Nuclear’s share as part of the global energy mix has been falling, and incidents like the Fukushima disaster in 2011 highlighted for many the risks of the technology.

Some countries started mothballing or shutting down plants, and many new projects were plagued by cost blowouts and delays.

But in the past few years there has been a remarkable turnaround.

Countries are pledging to help triple the production of nuclear power globally, and industry advocates are a growing presence at global climate summits.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body that advocates for peaceful use of nuclear technology, is forecasting substantial growth in the sector over coming decades.

And Australia is about to head into a federal election with the adoption of nuclear power at the centre of the political contest.

The Coalition argues Australia risks being left behind if it doesn’t get on board.

But others point out that while there is plenty of global interest in nuclear — and the as-yet unrealised promise of new technology such as small modular reactors — there is a lot more real money flowing into renewables, which are already transforming global energy grids.

Nuclear’s big global arrival

The COP29 climate summit held in Baku, Azerbaijan late last year was ostensibly dedicated to climate financing — that is, finding the money needed to fund a massive global effort to tackle climate change.

But it made headlines for a few different reasons.

One was that for the second year running, the global climate summit was being held in a country that derives most of its wealth from oil and gas. (Last year’s summit was held in the UAE).

Another was the growing presence of nuclear power.

Six more countries signed a pledge to triple nuclear’s global production by 2050, taking the total number of countries on board to 31.

They range from relatively small countries such as Moldova, through to major Australian allies like Canada, Japan, the UK and US.

All four of those larger countries have long-established nuclear industries.

Nuclear attracted plenty of attention, including headlines labelling it a “rising star” at the climate summit.

And there was an Australian presence in Baku ready to cheer it on.

Nationals MP David Gillespie, the retiring member for the NSW North Coast seat of Lyne, travelled to the summit (with some support from Coalition-aligned environment group Coalition for Conservation).

David Gillespie has been one of nuclear power’s longest and loudest supporters, chairing the “parliamentary friends of nuclear industries”.

He acknowledges that a “big slice” of the climate summit was devoted to renewable energy, and a lot of money and ambition is flowing into solar and wind.

But he said the shift in thinking on nuclear power at a global scale was clear to see………………………………..

But other Australians at the November conference say it is important not to overstate nuclear’s presence, and its place in the global net-zero effort.

Tennant Reed is the Director of Climate Change and Energy at the Ai Group, and is a veteran of COP climate summits.

He said the arrival of nuclear energy on the climate scene had certainly been noticeable……………..

He made the point that growth in nuclear power wasn’t a feature of the main negotiations at Baku, but nor was scaling up any other particular energy source.

Mr Reed said nuclear advocates were hosting events on the sidelines — and they were sensitive to one criticism in particular

“They’re all conscious — they have to show that they can deliver new projects ‘on time and on budget’,” he said.

“I must have heard that phrase 50 times from nuclear people………………………………

 Mr Reed said much of the growth in nuclear power was coming from countries with established industries, and while others were expressing interest in setting up an industry, few had recently broken ground.

He said there was a much more obvious momentum in the roll-out of renewables.

“Wind and solar deployment, and especially solar at the moment, is taking off like a rocket,” he said………….Conservationists cast doubt

Some conservation groups have sought to push back on the rising prominence of nuclear power, seeing it as a threatening distraction in efforts to combat climate change.

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney was also at the COP29 conference in Baku, and cast some doubt on nuclear’s future, at least compared to renewables.

“It’s one thing to have agreements and aspirations, it’s another to have projects and power,” he said.

“The industry is having some very good rhetoric, but it’s having a very poor reality. We’ve seen 30 countries say that they will triple nuclear (power) by 2050; we’ve seen 125 say they will triple renewables by 2045.”

And he argues part of the nuclear industry’s ambition is attracting public funding, in an effort to “de-risk” its projects.

“At meeting after meeting, they’ve spoken about the need for market reforms to de-risk nuclear projects,” he said.

“I think that is very bold code for ‘no-one wants to fund us, so we’re looking for the public purse’.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-26/is-the-world-going-nuclear-hope-or-hype/104856852

January 31, 2025 Posted by | climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Brian Goodall slams MP over Rosyth Dockyard nuclear submarines move

“As if it’s not bad enough that there are seven of these environmental time bombs already here, some of which have now been here for decades.“

By Ally McRoberts, Dunfermline Press 25th Jan 2025

A ROSYTH SNP councillor said he was “totally outraged” at the prospect of more nuclear submarines being brought to the dockyard for dismantling.

Brian Goodall said the “environmental time bombs” should be nowhere near the town and hit out at Labour MP Graeme Downie for pushing for more of the work to be done here.

One old Royal Navy sub, HMS Swiftsure, is being cut up and the radioactive waste removed as part of an innovative recycling scheme and there are six more vessels laid up at Rosyth, and another 16 at Devonport in Plymouth.

Mr Downie – who dismissed the criticism as “scaremongering” – wants the Ministry of Defence to put up the money to deal with all of the decommissioned boats and said it would “guarantee decades of work” and bring hundreds of jobs to the dockyard.

But Cllr Goodall hopes to sink that plan and said: “I’ve been totally outraged to see that our area’s Labour MP has called for even more nuclear submarines to be dumped and broken up in Rosyth.

“Labour’s MP for Dunfermline and Dollar has asked the MoD to bring all of the UK’s decommissioned nuclear submarines to Rosyth Dockyard.

“As if it’s not bad enough that there are seven of these environmental time bombs already here, some of which have now been here for decades.”

One of the seven at the yard, HMS Dreadnought has been laid up so long – since 1980 – that much of her low-level radiation has “disappeared naturally”.

As well as dealing with the 23 vessels at Rosyth and Devonport, three more are due to come out of service.

Cllr Goodall continued: “His call runs contrary to Fife Council’s long-standing commitment as a leading nuclear free local authority and I also fear the major impact on Rosyth Dockyard’s contribution to Scotland’s green transition, and the jobs that come with that, if this change of policy was secured, and the dockyard couldn’t become de-regulated as a nuclear site in the medium term.

“Rosyth is simply not the right place for the MoD, or anyone else, to be storing radioactive materials.

“There are homes, shops and businesses within metres of the dockyard.

“There’s a Fife College campus within the dockyard and our brand-new high school is being built within a few hundred metres of the site.”………………………..

Cllr Goodall said: “The compromise that could see the submarines that are already here, dismantled at the dockyard with all radioactive substances being removed to more suitable interim storage facilities down south, is one that I can, reluctantly, agree with, but any suggestion of additional nuclear submarines being brought to Rosyth is an outrage, and would be a breach of promise from the MoD.”……………………… https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/24883349.brian-goodall-slams-mp-rosyth-dockyard-subs-move/

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Media coverage of Dutton’s nuclear ‘plan’: Scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.

By Victoria Fielding | 28 January 2025,  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/media-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-plan-scrutiny-stenography-or-propaganda,19

Unsurprisingly, the conservative media has failed to scrutinise Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, once again displaying bias towards the Coalition, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.

WHEN OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton snuck his dodgy nuclear energy “plan” out just before Christmas, it was an important moment for Australian news media to demonstrate the quality of journalism they produce: scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.

It was also their opportunity to be honest with the public about why Dutton is backing nuclear power, an opportunity they unsurprisingly did not take.

I analysed 37 news reports published by the ABC, The Guardian, News Corp and Nine newspapers on 13 December 2024, the day Dutton released his long-awaited “plan” for nuclear power. I categorised each article as either scrutinising the plan (a useful form of journalism that critically assesses the viability of the nuclear policy), as stenography (just repeating Dutton’s plan without scrutiny), or as propaganda (news presented to look like news but what is actually a form of political advocacy, aiming to persuade readers to support Dutton’s nuclear plan).

Here are the results.

In what will not be surprising to anyone, propagandistic content made up the majority of News Corp’s 20 articles about Dutton’s nuclear plan, with 14 out of 20 enthusiastically supporting nuclear power as a viable energy solution for Australia.

One notable example of this propagandistic approach by News Corp was in The Australian’s editorial on the subject which clearly gave away the views of the masthead.

‘…the Opposition Leader has taken an important and brave step, setting out the economics of the issue in a context relevant to concerns about living costs, especially power bills… Frontier’s modelling shows that the Coalition’s plan, incorporating nuclear and renewables, would cost $331 billion across 25 years, 44 per cent less than Labor’s renewables approach.’

Just like much of News Corp’s propagandistic content advocating for right-wing policies and politicians, the implied suggestion that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is manipulatively deceiving.

According to Climate Council reports using CSIRO’s analysis:

‘…the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind. So that’s at least twice as much for nuclear, or up to ten times as much when comparing with the lowest-cost solar.’

Dutton and his News Corp collaborators never let facts get in the way of manipulating voters.

Next, we have stenography. Stenography is the laziest form of journalism. Rather than doing the difficult work of analysis and being a watchdog to ensure only credible information is relayed to voters, stenographers just repeat what a politician has said, uncritically.

This has the effect of allowing manipulative politicians like Dutton to put information in the public domain which is false and/or misleading. Stenography is actually the opposite of what of journalism is meant to be.  

Nine’s newspapers published six articles which just lazily repeated Dutton’s nonsensical nuclear plan, giving it undue credibility and failing to adequately scrutinise it.

For example, Phillip Coorey in the Australian Financial Review authored a piece originally titled ‘New costings signal war over energy’, which starts with the sentence:

‘The Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost up to $263 billion less than Labor’s renewable rollout between now and 2050, translating into cheaper electricity over the long run, its long-awaited economic modelling purports.’

Coorey would no doubt claim that he is not responsible for any manipulative or misleading content he has included in his article, because he is just reporting what Dutton said. But that is exactly the problem with stenography. Although it is not as bad as News Corp’s overt propagandist style, it still gives Dutton a platform to mislead the newspaper’s audience.

The only useful form of journalism out of the three categories is scrutiny. Indeed, the whole point of political journalism is to scrutinise politicians and policies to ensure voters are not misled and have useful information in which to make an informed decision when voting. All four outlets included at least some articles with extensive scrutiny of Dutton’s nuclear plan. News Corp had five and Nine published three.

The ABC (four articles) and The Guardian (three) were the only two outlets to only present Dutton’s nuclear policy alongside critical analysis.

One shining example of scrutiny from The Guardian’s Graham Readfearn and Josh Butler’s explainer, titled ‘The glaring gaps and unanswered questions in the Coalition’s nuclear plan and costings’, methodically lays out the facts and problems with Dutton’s plans — including the true higher cost comparison with renewables and the huge amount of time it would take nuclear to come online.

The ABC and The Guardian’s useful critique of Dutton’s plan is exactly the information that voters need to accurately appraise whether Dutton’s nuclear policy is beneficial to them and their community. No doubt News Corp and Nine would claim that this scrutiny just shows the ABC and The Guardian are “left wing”, but it shows no such thing. The ABC and The Guardian are doing a public service in scrutinising a major policy announcement and providing factual analysis comparing the real costs of nuclear and renewable energy.

If a left-wing party announced a different energy policy, they would do exactly the same thing. It is called public interest journalism.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the end of the story. There was one major element of Dutton’s nuclear policy which was only included in one of the 37 news reports I analysed — the motive behind Dutton’s nuclear push. This was included in The Guardian’s Readfearn and Butler explainer, albeit only in two after-thought quotes at the end of the piece.

Under the sub-title ‘How have critics responded?’ The Greens’ Adam Bandt was reported to have said “the nuclear strategy relied on extending the life of fossil fuels”. The Australia Institute’s Rod Campbell similarly said the nuclear plan was a “distraction to prolong fossil fuel use and exports”.

Disappointingly, no articles overtly pointed out to the public that the whole point of Dutton’s nuclear policy was to undermine investment in renewable energy, unsettling the transition to a low carbon economy, to slow down efforts to address climate change, all in aid of fossil fuel and mining billionaires. This exclusion is not just a small part of the story of Dutton’s nuclear policy, it is the story.

This truth, unfortunately, is the story journalists collectively have failed to tell.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | media, reference | Leave a comment

Geoscience Australia declares Darwin, Latrobe Valley high-risk earthquake zones

The Age By William Howard, 29 Jan 25

In short:

Darwin and Victoria’s Latrobe Valley have been identified as high-risk earthquake zones.

The National Seismic Hazard Assessment has been updated for the first time since 2018.

What’s next?

The Coalition has earmarked the Latrobe Valley as a potential site for a nuclear reactor if it wins the election, which is a concern for some residents.

…………………………………….In an update to the National Seismic Hazard Assessment, Geoscience Australia identified the Latrobe Valley and Darwin as the only two areas in Australia with a “higher risk of strong ground shaking”.

The Woods Point quake, centred about 130 kilometres east of Melbourne and 125km south of Ms Cox’s Traralgon South home, was the largest onshore event of its kind in the state’s modern history.

There were more than 43,000 reports from the public and the earthquake was felt in parts of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-30/darwin-and-latrobe-valley-high-risk-earthquake-zones/104873178

January 30, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Funding to electrify homes expanded as Bowen slams Opposition’s ‘nuclear fantasy’

Tim Fernandez, ABC Illawarra, Tue 28 Jan

In short:

Energy Minister Chris Bowen is calling for community groups across Australia to apply for grants to help residents install electrical appliances.

He says the scheme will reduce power bills and emissions and described the Opposition’s energy plan as a “nuclear fantasy”.

What’s next?

The expansion comes after “encouraging” results from a pilot program in NSW………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/chris-bowen-expands-household-electrification-scheme/104868630

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dutton’s atomic power bill for a ‘nuclear family’ could be nearly $39K

By Steve Bishop | 28 January 2025,  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-atomic-power-bill-for-a-nuclear-family-could-be-nearly-39k,19381

The Dutton nuclear power plan will cost about $264 billion if the type of reactor extolled by Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien is adopted.

That’s equivalent to more than $9,700 for every man, woman and child in Australia — and $38,800 for the proverbial “nuclear family”.

The costings are simple.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced on 13 December:

‘By 2050, our plan will deliver up to 14 GW of nuclear energy, guaranteeing consistent and stable electricity for all Australians.’

O’Brien even produced a video highlighting the virtues of the Bill Gates-backed Natrium reactor, which provides 345 megawatts of power and is costing US$4 billion (AU$6.45 billion) for the first one being built in Wyoming by TerraPower.

Forty-one of the reactors would be needed to produce the promised 14GW of nuclear power at a cost of $264.45 billion.

Australia has an estimated population of 27.2 million, giving a total of $9,724 for every man, woman and child.

Mr Dutton has made it plain he is opposed to big nuclear facilities and the Natrium small modular reactor (SMR) reactor meshes with his pledge to ‘place the latest zero emission nuclear technologies on the sites of seven retiring coal-fired power plants’.

Another reactor that falls within his pledge to use the latest technologies is the Rolls Royce UK SMR 470 MWe which could cost between £3 billion and £4 billion (AU$5.9-7.9 billion) apiece.

Even the lower estimate of £3 billion equates to $5.9 billion. Thirty of them would be needed to meet the 14GW target, at a cost of $176.7 billion.

But Nuclear Consulting Group chairman Paul Dorfman has warned that because the Rolls Royce reactor is more than 50 per cent bigger than an SMR it “will need big sites, standard nuclear safety measures, exclusion zones, core catchers, aircraft crash protection and security”.

Ontario and the Tennessee Valley Authority are planning to use the innovative GE Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor but it has been reported that planning documents reveal a cost of around US$5.4 billion (AU$8.6 billion), amounting to a cost of $369 billion for the 43 needed to produce 14KW of power.

Another new SMR is the Westinghouse AP300 SMR.

An order for four of the reactors has been placed in the UK for the Tees Valley with the Daily Express reporting:

‘The four reactors would cost £10 billion and generate 1.2 gigawatts of power, enough for 1.6 million homes.’

That’s £2.5 billion each, or AU$4.91 billion. Forty-three would be needed to meet the LNP target of 14GW — costing $211 billion. But this does not factor in the sort of cost blow-out experienced with other SMRs.

Mr Dutton was asked by ABC journalist Bridget Brennan in June:

“So, surely Australians need to know right now how much this is going to cost? Is it going to be as much as $16 billion per site?”

The answer is very much more expensive — more than $35 billion for each of the seven sites if Ted O’Brien’s preferred Natrium reactor is adopted.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | business | Leave a comment

Former Miss America’s Australian nuclear tour clouded by Chinese AI blow to her employer

Royce Kurmelovs, Jan 30, 2025,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/former-miss-americas-australian-nuclear-tour-clouded-by-chinese-ai-blow-to-her-employer/

Miss America 2023 winner Grace Stanke has begun her Australian tour to promote nuclear power, just as the US energy giant that employs her has taken a big market hit after Chinese company DeepSeek claimed to have found a cheaper way to make AI.

Stanke, who flew into Perth on Wednesday, is a nuclear engineer who works in public relations for Constellation to promote nuclear technology, and has been brought out for an Australian tour by campaign group Nuclear For Australia in an attempt to drum up local support for the technology.

Nuclear For Australia is nominally headed by 18-year-old Will Shackel. But Stanke’s tour has reportedly been bankrolled by Australian businessman Dick Smith, who also provided the funding to establish the group.

The tour comes amid an aggressive expansion drive by Constellation, which holds a suite of nuclear and fossil fuel assets. According to the company’s 2024 Sustainability Report, nuclear makes up 67% of its generation capacity, with natural gas and oil making up 25% and renewables and storage accounting for 8%.

Constellation has increasingly been looking to capitalise on the development of AI as a driver in future electricity demand that it hopes to meet with nuclear power.

In September last year the company announced it would buy the Three Mile End nuclear facility under a deal to supply Microsoft with power to run its AI data centres.

Earlier in January, Constellation bought out rival Calvine for $US 27 billion, a move that meant it acquired the company’s gas-plants.

As gas-peaking plants currently help smooth out spikes in the wholesale electricity market by turning on during periods of high demand — at the expense of nuclear generators — the acquisition potentially gives Constellation greater influence over wholesale prices.

Late last week, President Donald Trump announced the US would pour $US 500 billion into AI development in what has been described as an “arms race” with China, a decision welcomed by Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez.

“President Trump is right that sustaining and enhancing America’s global AI dominance goes hand in hand with reliable, abundant American electricity,” he said. “Data center developers, generators, utilities, and other stakeholders should continue to work together to accomplish the President’s goals on behalf of the American people.”

On Tuesday, however, the assumption that power-hungry chipsets needed to train and run AI data centres would continue to drive demand for “clean” nuclear power ran into a wall.

Chinese firm DeepSeek announced it developed an open large-language model (LLM) that provides roughly the same service as ChatGPT with a smaller team and a fraction of the hardware as their US counterparts.

With the Chinese market subject to sanctions that limit access to the full-power graphics processing units (GPUs) needed to build their own models, the company was forced to find a workaround to do more with less.

These GPUs perform the calculations needed to drive LLMs and are manufactured by chipmaker Nvidia that was, until Wednesday, considered the world’s most valuable publicly-traded company with a market cap of $3.45 trillion. That changed with the latest news from DeepSeek.

In December, DeepSeek claimed it cost (USD) $5.6m and two months to develop its V3 model – a portion of what it cost to create ChatGPT. The accuracy of this figure, however, is questionable as the price of electricity is unknown.

Last week the company released the full version of its R1 model that it said is 30-times cheaper to run than equivalent models produced by US competitors such as OpenAI. The company has not released the training data, but has published papers outlining its methods, effectively allowing anyone to take DeepSeek work and expand upon it for free.

The announcement of a cheaper, less-demanding model triggered a massive 17% drop in Nvidia shares — wiping off $USD593bn, and knocked 20 per cent off the price of Constellation shares. By Thursday Constellation’s performance had partially recovered but not nearly enough to make up for Tuesday’s losses.

These events coincide with the arrival of 22-year-old Stanke, now a pro-nuclear influencer, in Australia to help local campaigns sell the technology to the Australian public.

Her tour includes appearances in Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney, a parliamentary briefing and appearances at private events, including a community meeting in Lithgow, New South Wales.

The town selection is interesting as it has been a flashpoint for an anti-wind and anti-renewables campaign and has traditionally been a strong Nationals stronghold.

Lithgow falls within the federal seat of Calare which is currently held by federal independent Andrew Gee, who resigned from the National Party in 2022 over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Australia’s new chief scientist open to nuclear power but focused on energy forms available ‘right now’

Prof Tony Haymet says nuclear industry will need to ‘rebuild their social licence’ while noting solar and wind are ‘incredibly cheap’.

Josh Butler,  Guardian 28th Jan 2025 –

Australia’s new chief scientist has said he is open to the prospect of nuclear power playing a role in the country’s energy mix, but remained focused on forms of energy that were “available to help us right now”.

On his first day in the job, Prof Tony Haymet said new energy-intensive technologies like artificial intelligence could be powered by renewables, but that he thought serious discussions about nuclear in Australia were likely to be years away.

“If you go back and look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and so on, there wasn’t enough transparency and openness. I think the nuclear industry has accepted the fact that they have to rebuild their social licence to operate,” Haymet told a press conference when asked about small modular reactors (SMRs).

“You know, for the next chief scientist in 2030 or 2040, I think you can re-ask your question.”

Haymet said Australia shouldn’t “rule out any energy source” but said new technologies, like AI datacentres, would require much more power in the short term.

“So I’m looking at the slate of energies that are going to be available to help us right now. If we wait until we perfect wave energy or nuclear fusion, or some other source of power, we’re going to miss the bus,” he said……………………………………….

The CSIRO’s GenCost report in December reaffirmed that electricity from nuclear energy in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than power from solar and wind, backed up with storage. Electricity from SMRs would be significantly more expensive again, with the report rejecting opposition claims that nuclear power plants could be developed in Australia in less than 15 years.

The former chair of the Antarctic Science Foundation and high-level working groups on climate change, Haymet has also held senior roles at the CSIRO, with a particular focus on oceans.

Amid a heated debate on nuclear energy, sparked by the Coalition’s pledge to build conventional large reactors and SMRs – a developing technology that does not exist anywhere on a commercial basis – Dutton and his shadow ministers have been strongly critical of scientific reports and experts who have cast doubt on the viability of an Australian nuclear power industry.

Energy experts have noted the Coalition’s modelling forecasts much lower consumption of energy in Australia than Labor’s renewables-focused energy policy, which the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, claimed would see a $4tn hit to Australia’s economy. The Coalition modelling does not forecast a reduction in power bills and the Coalition senator Matt Canavan admitted the plan was “unachievable”.

At the press conference alongside the science minister, Ed Husic, Haymet strongly backed his former colleagues in the CSIRO.

“You may not be surprised to hear that I think the CSIRO report is a very fine piece of work. I don’t know of any mistakes in it, and if you do, please let me know. Having been inside CSIRO, I see the care and the diligence that goes into these reports,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/28/australia-nuclear-power-plan-tony-haymet-chief-scientist

January 30, 2025 Posted by | energy | Leave a comment

Nuclear news – week to 27 January

Some bits of good news– 

More than 2,400 aid trucks enter Gaza under truce, UN says no big looting issues.  The fastest energy change in history continues.  Protection for half a million hectares of Amazonian forests

TOP STORIES. Operation Stargate, the project to make AI an “essential infrastructure”.

America’s ‘zombie’ nuclear reactors to be revived to power Trump golden age.

Nuclear- not good vibrations in France. Nuclear power: Engie CEO criticises Arizona ambitions to extend Doel and Tihange lifespan. 

When Russian Radar Mistook a Norwegian Scientific Rocket for a U.S. Missile, the World Narrowly Avoided Nuclear War.

From the archives. St Louis radioactively contaminated sites visited by Dr Helen Caldicott

Noel’s notes. Nuclear waste springs eternal in the human folly.   For Australia, the nuclear lobby brings out the big massage!

AUSTRALIA. Miss America and nuclear engineer Grace Stanke will be travelling around Australia with a host of other nuclear experts as a part of the National Nuclear Tour. 

Is the world going nuclear? The hope and hype of nuclear as a climate solution. We know why nuclear build costs are soaring — and Australia faces the biggest increases.   Military Spending vs Social Services: Australia’s Paradox.  

NUCLEAR ITEMS

ECONOMICS.


 ENERGY California debunks a big myth about renewable energy.Europe posts record negative power prices for 2024 as renewables rise.

Green energy in abundance.Wind, not nuclear, is the best way to meet Sweden’s climate goals, leading think tank says. Nine Swedish energy researchers find that new nuclear power is not needed.
ENVIRONMENT. Vegetation being removed to enable upgrade of Sizewell line.Hinkley Point C: EDF says fish issue could delay new plant operation
EVENTS. 9 February -UNITAR Hosts Forum on Nuclear Abolition: 80 Years On
HEALTH. Radiation. The Scientists Who Alerted us to the Dangers of Radiation – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyUjtpysc2Y&t=4s
INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Indigenous group vows to stop nuclear waste shipments unless new deal struck.
LEGAL. Allied Groups Reach Historic Settlement on New Nuclear Bomb Part Production – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/01/21/2-b1-allied-groups-reach-historic-settlement-on-new-nuclear-bomb-part-production/
MEDIA. ‘Acres of Clams’- New documentary tells story of the Clamshell Alliance – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuE9oKh6-I
PERSONAL STORIES. Pete Wilkinson was well known for Sizewell C campaign work.

POLITICS.

POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Hiroshima, Nagasaki request Trump visit to teach ‘reality’.
SAFETY. Lakenheath: Ministers urged to clarify nuclear deployment. Memo to Trump: Address the new threat of drone-vulnerable nuclear reactors.
SECRETS and LIES. North Korea beats sanctions to acquire key tool for nuclear weapons -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/01/24/2-b1-north-korea-beats-sanctions-to-acquire-key-tool-for-nuclear-weapons/ The Atlas Network talking about itself
TECHNOLOGY. Nuclear fusion: it’s time for a reality check. Bill Gates’ nuclear energy startup inks new data center deal.

WASTES.

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Memo to Trump: Cancel US Air Force’s Sentinel ICBM program. Memo to Trump: Cancel the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile. Nuclear Proliferation and the “Nth Country Experiment”

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Miss America and nuclear engineer Grace Stanke will be travelling around Australia with a host of other nuclear experts as a part of the National Nuclear Tour.

COMMENT. As I have predicted, the media emphasis is on “Miss America”, and the propaganda is so shallow as to be laughable. (Despite her obvious intelligence, Ms Stanke is not asked to say anything really sensible).

 https://www.4bc.com.au/podcast/its-all-around-us-nuclear-engineer-and-miss-america-on-australian-tour-to-bust-myths/ 27 Jan 25

The tour is hoping to improve the public perception around nuclear science.

Grace Stanke told Peter Fegan on 4BC Breakfast, “I think nuclear energy and nuclear science as a whole is seen as some weird, unknown science that you have to spend 20 years in school to even so much as break into the industry, but that’s not the case.”

“Nuclear science is all around us, it’s in our homes. If you like bananas, you’re actually ingesting some radiation, smoke detectors use some nuclear technology.”

“All of these things that are part of our daily lives, so imagine how much more good nuclear science could do if we fully embrace this technology.”

January 27, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear- not good vibrations in France


Renew Extra 25th Jan 2025, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/01/nuclear-not-good-vibrations-in-france.html

France is having problems with nuclear power.  It was once the poster child for nuclear energy, which, after a rapid government funded build-up in the1980s based on standard Westinghouse Pressurised-water Reactor (PWR) designs, at one point supplied around 75% of its power, with over 50 reactors running around the country. Mass deployment of similar designs meant that there were economies of scale and given that it was a state-run programme, the government could supply low-cost funding and power could be supplied to consumers relatively cheaply.

But the plants are now getting old, and there has been a long running debate over what to do to replace them: it will be expensive given the changed energy market, with cheaper alternatives emerging. At one stage, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, it was proposed by the socialist government to limit nuclear to supplying just 50% of French power by 2025, with renewables to be ramped up. 

That began to look quite sensible when, in 2016, faults were found with the steel forgings of some of the old PWR plants. There was an extensive programme of reactor checks, with some units having to be shut down for the duration. But the industry, though chastened by stories about cover-ups, survived, and, with a new government in power led by Macron, the 50% limit was delayed. Indeed, proposals were made for significant expansion, based in part on an upgrade European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) design.  

Macron said ‘Our energy & ecological future depends on nuclear power; our economic and industrial future depends on nuclear power; and France’s strategic future depends on nuclear power’:

The first EPR in France has been built at Flamanville on the Normandy coast, but all did not go well.  It was 12 years late and four times overbudget.  And new vibration problems could mean that it may not be able to run at full power. In addition, more problems (this time with stress corrosion) have been found with some of the old plants. 

With at one stage, 28 of them shut down for tests and/or repairs, EDFs financial situation became increasingly weak. And, it has got worse. With, in 2024, the French government and economy also being in some disarray, it looked as if plans for more projects might have to be reconsidered, their being reports that ‘in the absence of financial commitment from the State, EDF (is) raising the possibility of halving the investments planned in the EPR2 program in 2025.’

It was the same for EDFs programme of building more EPRs in the UK- with one at Sizewell in Suffolk being proposed to follow on from the part-built one at Hinkley Point in Somerset.  Indeed, the French Court of Auditors has just recommended ‘not approving a final investment decision for EDF in Sizewell C before obtaining a significant reduction in its financial exposure in Hinkley Point C’. 

So what next? The somewhat beleaguered French government evidently wants the European Commission to revise EU renewable energy directive to also provide support for new nuclear!  But back home, it is arguably ‘far from ready’ for a new nuclear expansion programme.  And, with nuclear costs rising, the idea of treating it as ‘low risk’ compared with renewables in EU plans is being resisted.  Then again EDF evidently think some new nuclear options are too risky- it has pulled out of work on its initial design for a Small Modular Reactor, so it is no longer a contender for the UK SMR competition.

What does all this mean for the UK?  Well, although its overall finances are not good, up until recently, EDF has done quite well out of the UK, still running its fleet of old AGRs and its single PWR, with the UK’s funding subsidy schemes providing support for French profit-making via surcharges on UK consumers bills – in the case of the proposed new RAB scheme for Sizewell C, in advance of project completion. Indeed, some might say EDF’s exploitation of the UK has been overdone and not helpful! 

Certainly, EDF’s current troubles add to the increasing level of uncertainty about Sizewell C. China had provided some backing for Hinkley, but, with there being growing concerns about security, the UK government decided that China could not be allowed to back Sizewell. So the hunt was on for new backers. However, it has proven to be hard, and with talk of the bills for these projects ballooning, allegedly to £46bn for Hinkley, the opposition lobby is getting more assertive. Hinkley Point C was originally meant to start up in 2017, but may finally get going in 2031 or so. It is a giant project, impressive in a way, but arguably not what is needed, with renewables getting so much cheaper. Same for Sizewell C- it’s getting increasingly hard to justify it.

EDF do seem to be having it tough with nuclear of late, but although the costs of the EPRs  may be disputed, whatever they turn out to be, it’s far from clear if the French EPRs will be value for money.  The UK has done quite well so far with renewables, which have helped it get its emissions down by a half between 1990 and 2022, compared to a 23% reduction in France, where nuclear is still predominant and renewable are, so far, less developed.  Time for a change everywhere? Certainly, back in 2021, the IEA and RTE Agency in France produced a study asking if it was technically possible to integrate very high shares of renewables in large power systems like that in France. It concluded that, if coupled with adequate storage and system balancing, for renewables to supply 85-90% of power by 2050 and 100% by 2060. However, it would be expensive. But then so would continuing with nuclear, maybe more so.

January 26, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Atlas Network talking about itself

The MPS and its Atlas Network have conscientiously worked to change university campuses from places of free inquiry and critical thinking. Those beachheads in universities are matched by opportunities to find and promote “conservative” students. The idea is to shape them and potentially promote their careers in politics, the law, media, policy, academia and business.

January 26, 2025,  Lucy Hamilton ,  https://theaimn.net/the-atlas-network-talking-about-itself/

There is much to learn about the Atlas Network from one of Ron Manners’ Mannkal Economic Education Foundation newsletters. This Mannkal newsletter was issued in April 2015. The project continues unabated.

The Atlas Network is a global interconnection of over 500 faux “thinktanks” (or junktanks), dedicated to reinforcing and propagandising the “free market” message. The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) is considered its steering committee. The Atlas Network was designed from 1981 to metastasise similar bodies to sell “business” ideas. It finds local enthusiasts and donors around the world to eliminate obstructions to profit for American corporations and local fellow-travellers. The MPS is secretive: its membership is only rarely leaked.Ron Manners, with mining money, founded Mannkal in 1997. He is currently a life member and on the board of the MPS. He was appointed to the Advisory Council for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 2010. In 2020, he was awarded Atlas’s Sir Antony Fisher Achievement award. The newsletter explains that the name Mannkal originated in the cable/telex address of the company he inherited.

The Mannkal newsletter illustrates the connection to the MPS which first met in 1947. It brought together Austrian School economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises together with the Chicago School’s Milton Friedman. The MPS, through Hayek, began the process of creating plutocrat-serving law and economics institutes in universities around America.

It also took the model provided by bodies such as the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), founded in 1946, to create the mirage that a chorus of genuine policy experts supported the political economy that the donors desired. Friedman did much of the public relations for the project before the junktanks became more organised.

In the 1950s, Brit Antony Fisher, inspired by The Road to Serfdom, visited Hayek for advice. One of the UK junktanks in the Network explains that Hayek “told him bluntly to forget politics. Politicians just follow prevailing opinions. If you want to change events, change ideas.” He instructed Fisher to found thinktanks to help shift the prevailing mood away from the consensus that government, labour and capital all had a say in how society should operate towards a world where capital could dictate all including directing the government for its own ends.

When the co-founder of the Atlas Network Heritage Foundation, Ed Feulner, visited Australia in 1985 to conduct a workshop, he contrasted Friedman’s role marketing supply side economics, privatisation and the flat tax with the need for bodies to “set the terms and agenda of public policy.” The intent was to propagandise or “market an idea.” There must be “permanent saturation campaigns with multi-pronged, longterm strategies.” Proctor and Gamble, he explained, sell Crest toothpaste by “keeping the product fresh in the consumers’ minds.” That was to be the junktanks’ role. (These are a combination of Dr Jeremy Walker’s summaries and Feulner’s own words. The essay is well worth your time to see the history and people of Atlas in Australia.)

That Adam Smith Institute essay continues to boast that the Atlas Network had grown at the time of writing to 450 bodies. Now, the essay boasts, “They are changing events all over the world – from land reform in Peru, through privatization in Britain, public debt control in Pakistan, to low-cost education in India. And spreading the ideas of liberty in even the most unlikely places, in the Muslim world from Morocco through Turkey to Yemen and Kazakhstan; in Africa from Mali and Ivory Coast to Ethiopia; in Europe and the Far East.”

The MPS and its Atlas Network have conscientiously worked to change university campuses from places of free inquiry and critical thinking. Those beachheads in universities are matched by opportunities to find and promote “conservative” students. The idea is to shape them and potentially promote their careers in politics, the law, media, policy, academia and business.

One of Mannkal’s primary roles is the selecting of libertarian students in Western Australia for scholarships to Atlas Network junktanks around the world. In this edition of the newsletter, two report back on attending an MPS conference. One celebrated attending “networking events with prominent intellectuals and businesspeople from around the world.” Another was dazzled by, “Having dinner alongside a mining magnate, the chairman of a prominent think-tank, a famous TV presenter and an ex-CIA agent”. He continued, “I was exposed to a network rich in knowledge and influence, including a plethora of world-class academics, Nobel laureates and senior political figures.” (Nafeez Ahmed’s Alt Reich shows the significance of the CIA – and their former Nazis – in the shaping of the Atlas Network.)

Melbourne’s Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a 1943 creation, was absorbed into the Atlas Network in the era of the Liberal Party’s battle between the Wets and the Dries. It was reportedly “hijacked” by “radicals” after people senior in the body attended an MPS conference.

The newsletter report of a third scholarship holder illustrates the Cold War dread of communism that continues to motivate the MPS and its Atlas junktanks. Former Czech president Vaklav Klaus, then a member of the MPS for 25 years, spoke at a lunch. People who have suffered under communist and socialist governments are often rolled out to warn audiences of the continuing threat of authoritarianism. The offspring of refugees who have had awful experiences in such countries provide some of the enthusiastic recruits for Mannkal.

Neoliberalism was always a bunk economics that trumpeted itself as superior because it was driven by theory and rejected evidence. In fact it was an ideology – and a network of activists – that functioned to serve the rich donors. As the project became our new normal, it created ever more dramatic inequalities, resulting in the fury and pain that drives sadopopulism. Youthful interest in social democracies has been a more productive response. In 2024, the IPA was sharing American Atlas junktank Cold War 2.0 propaganda to address the risk that youth might turn away from the “freedom” they sell.

Those of us watching the Atlas Network’s Heritage Foundation plans come to fruition in the first week of Trump’s second term see where authoritarianism lurks right now. Heritage’s Mandate for Leadershiphas come a long way since its first iteration set out the Ronald Reagan economic revolution’s steps. Now it combines its ultra-libertarian positions with authoritarian social policy and autocratic governance.

In this newsletter, Mannkal boasts of 154 scholarships available. Many are to conferences. Fifteen are “midyear internships abroad.” Another 45 are “3-month internships abroad.” The students are sent to Atlas junktanks around the world with 12 partners in particular listed. They include the inspiration for Mannkal, the FEE in Atlanta mentioned above. The Institute of Economic Affairs in London is another. That’s the body that helped create Maggie Thatcher’s economics after she was inspired by The Road to Serfdom. She co-founded another Atlas junktank, the Centre for Policy Studies.

One of the interns celebrates Maggie Thatcher’s certainty of the importance of Atlas: “It started with Sir Keith and me, with the Centre for Policy Studies, and Lord Harris at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Yes, it started with ideas, with beliefs. That’s it. You must start with beliefs. Yes, always beliefs.” Thatcher and Reagan make repeat appearances as Atlas heroes in the newsletter.

Another intern went to the New Zealand Institute, where the Chief Economist is Eric Crampton, MPS director.

The intern who was sent to Atlas headquarters in Washington was delighted to attend events at several of the Atlas junktanks including the Cato Institute (where Rupert Murdoch was a board member in the 1990s) and the Leadership Institute (party to Project 2025 and, like Heritage, to the Christian Nationalist Council for National Policy). She was impressed by Tom Palmer: Atlas’s Executive Director for International Programs. His patronising speeches at the Friedman Conference over the years can be found online.

Another of the interns was deeply grateful to spend time in Melbourne at the IPA with John Roskam. Two went to the Menzies Research Centre (MRC). One was thrilled to sit in on “meetings with high-level politicians and policy-advisors.” Mathias Corman, then Finance Minister, spoke at an MRC event about “shrinking government” in New Zealand and Australia. The Atlas Network’s Project 2025 shows how brutal the cuts to government are ultimately intended to be.

The Executive Director of the Liberal Party-affiliated MRC Nick Cater has just spent the European summer with Viktor Orbán’s junktanks in Budapest.

Scholarship donors are listed in the newsletter as Manners, Gina Rinehart, Willy Packer and Toby Nichols.

One public figure who shows the path and now models the Atlas policy influence is David Seymour, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand/Aotearoa. He was recruited on his university campus by the Atlas Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT). The ACT is the now the political party that he leads. Seymour was awarded an Atlas “MBA” after a fortnight’s training at Atlas headquarters. He went on to work in the Canadian Atlas Frontier Center before returning to Atlas work in NZ. He is far from the only political leader with deep Atlas Network ties.

Austrian School economics is largely dead these days, although Atlas partners continue to try to resuscitate them. One of the intern reports in the newsletter says the “highlight of my experience was learning about Austrian economics, a stream of economics that is not taught in Australian high schools or universities.” There is a cogent reason why she was freshly discovering the contribution from “economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter and Frederic Bastiat – important economists whose ideas or names have never once been mentioned in my four years of studying economics.” Several interns mention this inculcation of Austrian School truthiness as part of their experience.

One of the most ebullient floggers of Austrian thought in America has been Rand Paul. The intern sent to Canada’s Fraser Institute was excited to report that he met the man.

The newsletter discusses its links to the then highlight of the Atlas Network calendar in Australasian region, the Friedman Conference. In 2024, the conference was reduced to a rabble-rousing event called the Triple Conference that gave a day to libertarianism, a day to Christian Nationalism and a day to conspiracy theory nonsense.

The Mannkal newsletter also links to the History of Economic Thought Society Australia (HETSA), which hosts a Young Scholars Initiative (YSI) conference. HETSA is, anecdotally, a host to MPS figures. In 2024, this event took place at the Alphacrucis University College in NSW. Alphacrucis is the official training college of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God network, Australian Christian Churches reshaped under Hillsong’s Brian Houston. Notre Dame University, also a Catholic force in reactionary politicking and culture wars, provided the YSI organiser.

A third conference series mentioned is the “Freedom to Choose” conference, hosted by Notre Dame University and “supported” by Mannkal. The 2024 conference focused as its theme on the “enduring relevance” of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, the book that inspired so many of the big money donors in the early history of neoliberalism.

Ron Manners pontificates on Public Choice Theory in the newsletter. This is a core aspect of Atlas’s history.

One of the key details to be gleaned from the newsletter is that this project is lifelong and often intergenerational for the donors. One of the interns at the IEA considered herself lucky to meet Hayek’s daughter who allowed the interns to “gain insight into the workings of her father first-hand!” Antony Fisher’s daughter, Linda Whetstone, was president of the MPS, chair of the Atlas Network and on the board at the IEA. Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith co-founded the IPA with Charles Kemp. Rupert was an official board member at Cato, and an unofficial conduit of the IPA, Centre of Independent Studies and MRC, whose people are regularly found on his platforms. The Kemp sons, Rod and David, were key figures in the thinktanks and the Atlas Americanisation of Australian politics.

Charles Koch has been a prime force financially and strategically at Atlas for decades.

It is hard to know how much of the change from Keynesian balanced economy to neoliberal brutality is attributable to the MPS and the Atlas Network, compared to how much might be due to the general impact of the donors and ideologues. Industry lobbies and the direct power of the plutocrats intermix with the marketing of the Atlas Network and its soft power impact for American corporations around the world.

The plutocrats ventriloquised through Atlas operations, but do not seem to feel the same compulsion to separate their goals from their faces any longer. Whether it’s Elon Musk or Gina Rinehart, they seem to feel comfortable now dictating oligarch policy for themselves.

Regardless, it’s worth watching Atlas talking about itself: the freedom it declares it fights for was always anti-democratic.

January 26, 2025 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

We know why nuclear build costs are soaring — and Australia faces the biggest increases

Around the world, experts have investigated why nuclear power construction costs keep going up. And we’re ignoring their lessons.

Crikey, Bernard Keane 21 Jan 25

The history of nuclear power construction is the history of costs going up and up, and delays getting longer and longer — not just over the past decade but since the 1960s. And studies of what has caused such rampant inflation show Australia is in the worst position to enter the complex and eye-wateringly expensive business of building nuclear power plants.

Global price spikes in construction materials resulting from the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine have helped push infrastructure costs up everywhere, but significant blowouts in the construction costs of nuclear power plants are a much older story (when Crikey first covered nuclear power in Australia, in 2009, the first thing we pointed out was the cost…………………………………. (Subscribers only) more https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/01/21/australia-nuclear-energy-cost-peter-dutton/

January 25, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste springs eternal in the human folly

25 Jan 25,  https://theaimn.net/nuclear-waste-springs-eternal-in-the-human-folly/

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest.” – Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man, 1733

Pope goes on to say – “The soul, uneasy, and confin’d from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.” I’m not sure what he means, but “never is, but always to be blest” really does suggest that the blessed solution actually never comes.

All that is fine, in the religious context. Because that way, it will all come good when we get to Heaven, in the next life.

In the nuclear waste context, the powers that be are as confident as the religious leaders, that all problems will be solved – later on, so we can go on hell-for-leather, making the poisonous trash.

‘High likelihood’ of radioactive waste in smoldering landfill, Missouri officials say

I was prompted to these thoughts by January 22nd news from Missouri – High likelihood of radioactive waste in smoldering landfill, Missouri officials say. I’ve been following this particular radioactive trash problem for at least 12 years  https://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/16/radioactive-trash-in-st-louis-related-to-underground-landfill-fire/. And that fire’s still going! And that radiation is still causing cancers in the local community.

Dr Helen Caldicott, founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, visiting St Louis in 2016, said – the radioactive contamination in north St. Louis County is “worse than most places” she’s investigated, and called the situation “obscene.” Records reveal 75 years of government downplaying, ignoring risks of St. Louis radioactive waste.

So, the cleanup of St Louis’ County radioactive sites, contaminated by wastes from nuclear-weapons -making, goes on, with ever hopes to complete it, – while the nuclear-weapons-making goes on, creating even more radioactive trash

St Louis County is symbolic of the whole obscene nuclear waste situation across the planet.

Energy expert Kurt Cobb, writing in Oil Price, examines Sweden’s options for disposing of nuclear waste. He argues that climate change, political instability, and technological limitations could all pose threats to the long-term safety of nuclear waste storage. The Swedish plan is to fill the storage site—”60 km of tunnels buried 500 metres down in 1.9 billion year old bedrock”—sometime by 2080 at which time it will be closed.

Cobb points out that civilization, that is, human settlement in cities, has only been around about 10,000 years, but the wastes must be safe and secure for 100,00 years. The containers, copper capsules, are likely to corrode, and leak radioactive elements into groundwater, in a much shorter time.

He questions our faith in technological progress, which is supposed to absolutely solve the nuclear waste problem. It’s very like the Christian view on Alexander Pope’s statement – we’re not going to be blest in this world, so just look to life in the hereafter.

Kurt Cobb also discusses nuclear reprocessing, which brings its own problems, and still creates more waste, and he mentions other suggestions – shooting such waste into space or into the Sun.

Now here’s where I’m shocked at Mr Cobb. In all my years of reading worthy treatises on nuclear waste disposal, this is the first time I’ve found an energy expert to come up with a heretical thought like stopping making radioactive trash:

“I wonder if we were wise to create something in the first place that requires 100,000 years of care, given how heedless we as a species are to hazards of our own making that may destroy our current civilization much, much sooner than a thousand centuries from now.“

Really, Mr Cobb, wash your mouth out with soap! You don’t say things like that, if you want to be taken seriously by the world’s reputable nuclear experts.

January 25, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »