The devil of Frontier’s nuclear modelling is not in the detail, it’s in the omissions
Alan Rai, Jan 23, 2025, ReNewEconomy
In November and December 2024, Frontier Economics released two reports on the transition required in the NEM to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, drawing on AEMO’s 2024 Integrated System Plan (ISP).
This was followed by various summaries and takeaways of the Frontier modelling by, amongst others, Steven Hamilton, Matt Kean, Kane Thornton, and David Leitch.
In contrast to some of the public reaction to date, I think Frontier’s work adds to the debate about the potential for nuclear power generation in Australia. In particular, Frontier’s work raises a philosophical question about the pace of decarbonisation we want, and our willingness to pay for it.
We might all subscribe to “Net Zero by 2050”, but the pathway to get there, as AEMO’s and Frontier’s modelling show, can clearly differ. I will return to this issue, below.
This article differentiates from what’s been publicly said and written about Frontier’s work in two important ways:
1. It focuses on the assumptions in and implications of Frontier’s modelling, whereas the bulk of the existing public discussion mixes aspects of Frontier’s analysis with political parties’ and politicians’ statements on nuclear power and their selective use of Frontier’s analysis to support their statements.
2. It discusses both of the Frontier reports, whereas the bulk of existing discussion focuses on selected aspects of Frontier’s second report.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In conclusion
To reiterate what I started with, I think Frontier’s work adds to the debate about the potential for nuclear power generation in Australia – their modelling poses some important philosophical questions for us.
However, the above-noted challenges means Frontier’s modelling falls short of a definitive answer to whether nuclear is appropriate, at any scale and at any future time horizon, for Australia’s power sector. As Frontier appropriately noted, their modelling is not “the last word on this matter.” https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-devil-of-frontiers-nuclear-modelling-is-not-in-the-detail-its-in-the-omissions/
26 January – WEBINAR Autonomous Armageddon: Nuclear Weapons and AI
Join us for a critical webinar on Sunday, January 26, at 2:00 PM GMT “Autonomous Armageddon: Nuclear Weapons and AI“, to explore the alarming dangers posed by the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into nuclear weapons systems. Hosted by three Nobel Peace Prize-winning organizations dedicated to eliminating nuclear weapons, this event will feature expert speakers, including:
Moderator: Professor Karen Hallberg, Secretary General of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, 1995 Nobel Peace Prize.
Representative of Nihon Hidankyo, 2024 Nobel Peace Prize;
Professor Geoffrey Hinton, 2024 Nobel Prize Winner in Physics;
Connor Leahy, CEO of Conjecture (AI safety research);
Dr. Ruth Mitchell, neurosurgeon and Chair of IPPNW, 1985 Nobel Peace Prize;
Melissa Parke, Executive Director of ICAN, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize; and
Together, they will discuss the general and specific risks AI presents to nuclear command and control systems, the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear war, and ongoing initiatives to mitigate these threats. We invite you to participate in this vital discussion to address the intersection of AI and nuclear weapons.
Register here or below. A recording will be made available following the session.
Nuclear news as the Trump chaos world begins
Now we enter the chaos of Trump World. It means lies, manipulations, news that you can’t trust. I cannot keep up with the Israel, Ukraine, monster China etc stuff – though it’s all on the brink of nuclear disaster.
So, from now on, I’m confining this newsletter more narrowly to NUCLEAR news. And with an emphasis on Australia, as it now faces a nuclear industry takeover, and becoming the USA’s proxy for nuclear war against China.
TOP STORIES
California wildfires: a warning to Nuclear Regulatory Commission on climate change.
Chris Hedges: The Ceasefire Charade. Report: Israel and Hamas Agree ‘in Principle’ to Ceasefire and Hostage Deal .
Becoming a responsible ancestor – about America’s nuclear wastes.
The EPR nuclear sector: new dynamics show persistent risks -La cour des comptes .
Former nuclear energy executives face federal charges in massive Ohio bribery scheme
Noel’s notes. 2025 – Australia’s dangerous nuclear dance with Dutton? The world’s blind eye to the nightmare problem of nuclear waste disposal.
AUSTRALIA. Dutton’s new nuclear nightmare: construction costs continue to explode. Virginia, we have a problem. More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2025/01/20/australian-nuclear-news-13-20-january-2025/
| CLIMATE. Trump’s got a radioactive time bomb under Greenland’s ice. Wildfire risks high at nuclear plants.Weatherwatch: Could small nuclear reactors help curb extreme weather? There’s a credibility gap. |
| ECONOMICS. French energy giant EDF launches search for Hinkley Point finance after damning audit report – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/01/19/2-b1-french-energy-giant-edf-launches-search-for-hinkley-point-finance-after-damning-audit-report/. French auditor recommends EDF delays UK Sizewell investment decision ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/01/17/2-b1-french-auditor-recommends-edf-delays-uk-sizewell-investment-decision/Sizewell C’s future in doubt as EDF told to prioritise French nuclear power. Cost of Sizewell C nuclear project expected to reach close to £40bn. EDF Energy Juggles Maintenance Amid UK’s Nuclear Energy Challenges. Ukraine’s parliament has given the go-ahead for the purchase of two old Russian nuclear reactors. |
| ENERGY. Renewable energy sets global record…but it’s not enough. |
| EVENTS. Petition/email: Save Billions, Cancel Sizewell C |
| HEALTH. Nukes kill kids. |
| HUMAN RIGHTS. Amazon Is Censoring My Most Recent Magazine Issue. |
| LEGAL. Last Energy, Texas, Utah allege NRC overstepping in SMR regulation |
MEDIA. CBS’ 60 Minutes Exposes the Biden Administration’s Complicity in Gaza Genocid.
Interviews the Whistleblowers. ‘National scandal’: The BBC’s Gaza cover-up.
Told you so: Financial Times follows Nuclear Free Local Authorities’s lead on Sizewell C cost estimate.
How Canada supplied uranium for the Manhattan Project- documentary “Atomic Reaction“
| PERSONAL STORIES. Patrick Lawrence: The Nihilism of Antony Blinken. |
| POLITICS. Over time, over budget… will our new nuclear plants ever be built? – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/01/20/1-a-over-time-over-budget-will-our-new-nuclear-plants-ever-be-built/ |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. The UK military’s secret visits to Israel. |
| URANIUM. Saudi Arabia plans to enrich and sell uranium as Iran commences nuclear talks with E3. |
| WASTES. Ask the locals: NFLA Chair says it is ‘prudent and proper’ for Nuclear Waste Services to consult residents over South Copeland flooding risk. Dunfermline MP Graeme Downie calls for MoD commitment to dismantle dead nuclear submarines. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Are AI defense firms about to eat the Pentagon? Outgoing CIA director says ‘no sign’ Iran developing nuclear weapons. Submarine nuclear core project faces ‘challenges’. |
Military Spending vs Social Services: Australia’s Paradox
January 18, 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
Discover how Australia’s currency sovereignty allows for unlimited funding yet prioritizes military spending over essential social services.
Introduction: Australia’s Spending Paradox
Despite being a currency-sovereign nation with the ability to fund public initiatives without financial constraints, Australia’s federal government consistently prioritizes military spending and corporate welfare over social services. Why is it that when it comes to healthcare, education, and housing, the government suddenly “runs out of money”?
This article explores the reasons behind these budgetary choices, exposing how ideological biases and misinformation shape public spending priorities. By understanding currency sovereignty, we can challenge these myths and advocate for a fairer allocation of public funds.
Understanding Currency Sovereignty
What Is Currency Sovereignty?
Currency sovereignty means that a government, like Australia’s, issues its own currency and controls its supply. Unlike households or businesses, it does not rely on income to spend. Instead, it creates money through the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). This ability allows the government to finance any program it considers necessary.
Key takeaways:
– The government cannot run out of money.
– Taxes and borrowing are tools to regulate inflation, not fund spending.
– Spending decisions are constrained by resource availability and inflation, not cash limits……………………………..
Federal Spending Priorities
Military Spending
In recent years, Australia has committed to massive defence expenditures, including the controversial AUKUS deal. For 2023-24, defence spending surpassed $52 billion, a figure justified by “security concerns” and geopolitical alliances……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Conclusion
Australia’s federal government has the financial ability to fully fund social services while keeping other commitments. The persistent excuse of financial constraints reflects ideological choices rather than economic realities. By understanding currency sovereignty and advocating for change, Australians can push for a fairer society……………………………. more https://theaimn.net/military-spending-vs-social-services-australias-paradox/
Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy policy is unclear policy
January 18, 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-policy-is-unclear-policy/
Peter Dutton’s signature nuclear energy policy has rightly been subject to significant criticism and analysis, highlighting several key issues:
- The policy has been criticised for its potential high costs. Reputable sources suggest that nuclear energy is likely to be significantly more expensive than renewable energy alternatives. For instance, the Climate Council estimates that it could increase household electricity bills by $665 annually, and the CSIRO’s GenCost report indicates that nuclear power is at least twice as expensive as renewables.
- The timeline for establishing nuclear power in Australia is considered overly ambitious. It’s estimated that it would take at least 15 years to get reactors up and running, which means significant delays in addressing immediate energy needs. This delay could lead to continued reliance on fossil fuels, thus increasing emissions rather than reducing them.
There are substantial environmental concerns related to nuclear power, including the management of nuclear waste, the risk of accidents, and the overall environmental footprint (which the industry says is nil) when considering the lifecycle of nuclear facilities. Dutton’s policy doesn’t adequately address these risks, particularly in a country such as ours with no prior nuclear energy infrastructure.- Implementing nuclear power requires overcoming significant political and regulatory hurdles. Opposition from state governments, along with existing federal bans on nuclear energy, presents legal and political obstacles. The need for new legislation and the potential for compulsory land acquisition further complicates the policy’s execution.
- The policy could deter investment in renewable energy by creating uncertainty about the future energy landscape. Investors might be reluctant to commit to long-term renewable projects if there’s a possibility that the energy market will shift towards nuclear, potentially leading to higher energy costs and less economic growth.
There are valid doubts about public support for nuclear power in Australia, particularly given historical opposition. The proposed choice of sites for nuclear reactors raises questions about community consent.- The policy focuses on nuclear at the expense of more immediately deployable and cost-effective renewable solutions (Sydney Morning Herald, paywalled). The argument is that renewable energy can be scaled up more quickly to meet current and future energy demands without the risks associated with nuclear.
- There has been a noted absence (Sydney Morning Herald, paywalled) of comprehensive costings from the Coalition for their nuclear plan, leading to skepticism about the economic claims made by Dutton. This lack of transparency has been highlighted as a major flaw.
- In summary, the policy is economically risky, environmentally questionable, and politically contentious, potentially leading to higher energy prices, slower adoption of clean energy, and increased reliance on fossil fuels in the interim.
- It looks as though Dutton is on a loser with his nuclear energy policy. He pursues it at his political peril.
TODAY 2025 – Australia’s dangerous nuclear dance with Dutton?
20 January 2025 https://theaimn.net/2025-australias-dangerous-nuclear-dance-with-dutton/
Why I must now focus on Australia’s nuclear question.
For the past 18 years, I have been running two websites dedicated to the nuclear-free cause. I started these when John Howard was proposing nuclear power for Australia. The hazards then were obvious, environmental and health damage, further oppression of Aboriginal people, threats to civil liberties, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and more.
Over the last few years, the threat of nuclear war has increased. It’s become clear that men in power have come to believe that a nuclear war can be won, despite what the scientists tell us. The idea of nuclear disarmament has gone out the window, as ever new, cleverer, bigger nuclear weapons are devised by our fine “defenders”.
While danger has increased, knowledge and understanding of history has decreased. So we have a Western world that pays no attention to the background to the war in Ukraine, and confidently believes that it is all about one “evil” man – Putin, and nothing to do with the complex story of the Donbass region of Ukraine, and its quest for autonomy.
Meanwhile the horror of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza continues, and the Netanyahu government’s ruthless oppression there is backed by Western weapons, and moral support, – because we “don’t want to be anti-semitic, do we?” And again, the history of the region is ignored.
These two situations could so easily tip the world over the brink – to nuclear war.
But as if that were not enough – there’s more on-the-brink background. We must now hate not only Russia, but also China, and Iran, and be ready to nuclear bomb them. We must build up more nuclear weapons, – to the gratification of those lovely armaments companies and their happy shareholders.
And if that all is not enough to have us now teetering on that brink, we have the most powerful nation in the world run by a deranged President Trump, who is supported, perhaps himself controlled, by a small group of obscenely rich men of brilliant minds but lopsided morals, including the ketamine-dependent Elon Musk.
So, to get back to the point. In this crazy new world, the new USA government will destroy or control political, judicial, educational and social institutions, with the aid of Murdoch media and social media. Misinformation and lies will be rife, and it will be a struggle to find media sources that can be trusted. But decent people, with the will for co-operation and for collective action continue – we just have to find them.
I have tried, through my websites to cover those international political issues that bring nuclear war ever closer. But now, it is just too hard.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, here in Australia, we have the unique situation of an entire continent being taken over, militarily, by the USA. Liberal and Labor governments have let it happen. Labor Prime Ministers, terrified by what happened to the one Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, who dared to stand up to the USA, continue to kowtow to America.
If the “tech bros” and the shadowy Atlas Foundation can play a role in bringing the chaotic Donald Trump to power in the USA, they could well do the same thing here, helping to bring Dutton’s nuclear madness to Australia. However, I must give Dutton some credit, too. He now looks likely to offer all sorts of other enticements to Australian voters, and perhaps just soft pedal on the nuclear propaganda, and hope we forget about it..
It is up to those of us who are aware, and perhaps have the time, to explore the scenario of what the nuclear industry would mean for this country.
Australia is somewhat scarred by the nuclear industry already, with the abomination of the British nuclear bombing of aboriginal land in the 1950s, and with the environmental and health destruction of uranium mining. But Australia now has this unique opportunity – to be the world leader in renewable energy, and energy conservation.
Australia does not have to be “USA’s beachfront against China” as one American politician said recently. Australia does not have to be the Southern Hemisphere base for USA’s nuclear-armed bombers, and nuclear submarines.
So, anyway, I reckon that the job for aware Australians is to keep the focus on Dutton’s nuclear nuttiness, exposing its lies. For my own part, I’m narrowing the scope of my websites and newsletter, taking them back to their original theme – for a nuclear-free world.
“
Australian nuclear news -13-20 January 2025.
Headlines as they come in:
Dutton’s nuclear plan to wipe out Australia’s aluminium smelters .
Hey Australia, Ontario is no model for energy and climate policy.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy policy is unclear policy,
Lack of detail Dutton Launches Much to Do About Nothing campaign.
Peter Dutton’s “always on” nuclear power is about as reliable as wind and solar – during a renewables drought.
Dutton’s new nuclear nightmare: construction costs continue to explode.
Virginia, we have a problem.
Dutton’s nuclear plan to wipe out Australia’s aluminium smelters
Australian Financial Review, Chris BowenMinister for Climate Change and Energy, 19 Jan 25
The Coalition’s costings are predicated on large industrial facilities in the southern and eastern states of Australia halving their energy use by the end of 2030, and keeping it there.Chris BowenMinister for Climate Change and Energy
Of all the problems with Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy costings released in the dying days of 2024, probably the biggest is that the entire policy assumes much of Australian heavy industry closes over the next few years.
This is particularly ironic as Mr Dutton claims with a straight face that nuclear power is necessary for industrial growth.
The details of his so-called policy costings reveal the only way the Coalition can make nuclear energy appear cheaper than it is – even Ted O’Brien admits he’s not predicting nuclear will bring power bills down – is to assume Australia will need a lot less power.
It indicates an extraordinary degree of pessimism about Australia’s manufacturing future, specifically for electricity-hungry industries like aluminium smelting.
In releasing those figures, the Coalition has tied themselves to a future scenario predicated on large industrial facilities across the southern and eastern states of Australia halving their energy use by the end of 2030 – and keeping it there.
Specifically, the model Peter Dutton has adopted as the basis for his energy policy, shows a material drop and then permanent flatlining in industrial electricity demand for Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland and NSW.
That is, less than half the energy we need to power our biggest industrial users right now – let alone to enable growth in the future.
We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth.
Peter Dutton says he supports the aluminium industry, but his own nuclear costings rely on shutting it down.
Analysis of the timing of large loads coming off, shows it coinciding with the end dates of existing power purchase agreements for each of Australia’s four aluminium smelters across those states.
It shows a Liberal Party either cavalier about, or comfortable with Tasmania’s Bell Bay smelter closing in less than 12 months by January 2026, Portland’s smelter winding down in July 2027, plus NSW’s Tomago and Queensland’s Boyne smelter gone by July 2029…………………………………………………………………
As someone who wants to lead a country, why would Dutton be planning for an economy that’s smaller and an industrial sector that’s worse off with no growth opportunities, before he’s even begun? Why bank on job losses to bring down the cost of his electricity system?
And if you’re not planning for a contracting economy, then where’s your credible energy policy to meet growing demand in the next five, 10 and 20 years?
We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth. We need to be planning an energy system for the future, one that has bigger industry, ………………………………………………………. more https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-to-wipe-out-australia-s-aluminium-smelters-20250119-p5l5l4
Hey Australia, Ontario is no model for energy and climate policy
Energy and climate strategy should prioritize options with lowest economic, environmental, technological and safety risks. Ontario’s does the opposite.
by Mark Winfield October 4, 2024,
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2024/ontario-energy/
Over the past few weeks, word has begun to reach Ontario of a series of stories in the Australian media in which the province is being held up as a model for climate and energy policy Down Under.
It seems that Peter Dutton, the leader of the federal opposition Liberal (the conservative party in Australian politics), has been promoting Ontario’s nuclear heavy energy plans as a pathway for Australia.
For those in the province familiar with the ongoing saga of its energy and electricity policies, the reactions to the notion of Ontario being an example of energy and electricity policymaking have ranged from “bizarre” to “you couldn’t make this up.”
The Australian opposition leader seems to be operating on a very limited understanding of the history and current state of electricity, energy and climate policy in Ontario. A good starting point would be the delays and cost overruns flowing from the province’s initial 20-reactor nuclear construction program. Running from the 1960s through the early 1990’s, they effectively bankrupted the provincially owned utility Ontario Hydro. Its successor, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), could only be made economically viable by offloading nearly $21 billion in mostly nuclear-related debt onto electricity ratepayers.
Poor maintenance and operating practices led to the near-overnight shutdown of the province’s seven oldest reactors in 1997, leading to a dramatic rise in the role of coal-fired generation and its associated emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and smog precursors. The refurbishment of the “laid-up” reactors themselves went badly. Two ended in write-offs, and the others ran billions over budget and years behind schedule, accounting for a large portion of the near doubling of electricity rates in the province between the mid-2000s and 2020.
Towards a $100-billion nuclear binge?
Only two other provinces followed Ontario’s lead on nuclear. Quebec built two reactors and New Brunswick one, each of them completed in the 1970s or the early 1980s. The Gentilly-1 facility in Quebec was barely ever operational and closed in 1977. The Gentilly-2 facility was shut down in 2012, and assessed as uneconomic, particularly in light of Ontario’s experiences in attempting to refurbish its own. The construction and then refurbishment of the Point Lepreau facility has repeatedly pushed New Brunswick Power to the brink of bankruptcy.
The current government of Ontario, led by Conservative Premier Doug Ford, has seemed determined to ignore the nuclear experiences of these provinces, and its own history of failed nuclear megaprojects. The government’s July 2023 energy plan includes the refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce nuclear power facility (owned by OPG), and four reactors at the OPG’s Darlington facility. It subsequently added the refurbishment of four more reactors at OPG’s Pickering B facility, an option that had previously been assessed as unnecessary and uneconomic. The plant had originally been scheduled to close in 2018. There are also proposals for four new reactors totaling 4,800 MW in capacity at Bruce and four new 300MW reactors at Darlington. (The current capacity is 6,550 MW at Bruce, and 3,512 MW at Darlington.)
The total costs of these plans are unknown at this point, but an overall estimate in excess of $100 billion would not be unrealistic:
$13 billion for the refurbishment at Darlington;
approximately $20 billion for the refurbishment at Bruce;
$15 billion for Pickering B (based on Darlington costs and plant age for both this case and Bruce);
about $50 billion for the new build at Bruce, based on previous new build proposals;
and the Darlington new build (unknown, but likely $10 billion or more).
Even this 100$-billion figure would assume that things go according to plan, which rarely happens with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects.
The government’s ambitious nuclear plans have not been subject to any form of external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or the availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector, including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, are mandated to implement.
Even this 100$-billion figure would assume that things go according to plan, which rarely happens with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects.
The government’s ambitious nuclear plans have not been subject to any form of external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or the availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector, including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, are mandated to implement.
The province’s politically driven policy environment is very advantageous to nuclear proponents. When previous nuclear expansion proposals had been subject to meaningful public review, the plans collapsed in the face of soaring cost estimates and unrealistic demand projections. This was the case in the early 1980s with the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning – aka the Porter commission, at the turn of the 1990s with the Ontario Hydro demand and supply plan environmental assessment, and in the late 2000s, with the Ontario Power Authority’s integrated power system plan review.
A halt to renewable energy
There is a second dimension to Ontario’s electricity plans that also should not be overlooked. Upon arriving in office the Ford government promptly terminated all efforts at renewable energy development, including having completed wind turbine projects quite literally ripped out of the ground at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It then scrapped the province’s energy efficiency strategy for being too effective at reducing demand. Repeated offers of low-cost electricity from the hydropower-rich neighbouring province of Quebec were ignored. The results of studies by the province’s own electricity system operator on energy efficiency potential and the possible contributions of distributed generation, like building and facility-level solar photovoltaics (PV) and storage, have been largely disregarded.
These choices have left the province with no apparent option but to rely on natural gas-fired generation to replace nuclear facilities that are being refurbished or retired. With existing facilities dramatically ramping up their output, and new facilities being added, GHG and other emissions from gas-fired generation have more than tripled since 2017, and are projected to continue to increase dramatically over the next years. On its current trajectory, gas-fired generation will constitute a quarter of the province’s electricity supply, the same portion provided by coal-fired plants before their phase-out, completed in 2013. The province has recently announced a re-engagement around renewable energy, but the seriousness of this interest has been subject to considerable doubt.
Given all of this, it would be difficult to see Ontario as a model for Australia or any other jurisdiction to follow in designing its energy and climate strategy. The province has no meaningful energy planning and review process. Its current nuclear and gas-focussed pathway seems destined to embed high energy costs and high emissions for decades to come. And it will leave a growing legacy of radioactive wastes that will require management of timescales hundreds of millennia.
A rational and transparent process would prioritize the options with the lowest economic, environmental, technological and safety risks. Higher-risk options, like new nuclear, should only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the lower-risk options have been fully optimized and developed in the planning process. Ontario’s current path goes in the opposite direction. To follow its example would be a serious mistake.
‘I was exposed to evil in British nuclear tests’
Kirsteen O’Sullivan & Marcus White, 15 Jan 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpp5ze28ro?fbclid=IwY2xjawH5E-JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHegxfVRLO66gQNKipt3Y5f9BWzRPbu0h6QWkys9CWH2yBTjZhE1YRCwhmA_aem_E7q8FCNDKoWD6DMMToVaoQ
A nuclear test veteran who witnessed the detonation of several British atomic bombs in the 1950s has said he was “exposed to evil”.
Robert James, 87, was an RAF firefighter stationed in Maralinga in Australia, where seven major UK tests took place.
Mr James, from Fordingbridge, Hampshire, said many service personnel had suffered fatal illnesses as a result and he was angry that the UK government had still not offered compensation.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said ministers were continuing to discuss issues with families.
Veterans’ campaign groups have said British service personnel were lined up and deliberately exposed to bomb tests to see what effect they would have.
Mr James said many of his comrades had died as a result of cancers and diseases associated with radiation exposure.
He said: “A lot of the guys suffered a lot. There’s lads dying every day… and after having long illness.
“We were exposed to evil, we were exposed to radiation. That’s pretty serious and I think that warrants compensation.
“Not only for people that are surviving like myself but the families that have suffered where their husbands or fathers died.”
In 2019, the Labour Party, then led by Jeremy Corbyn, pledged £50,000 for each surviving British nuclear test veteran.
Sir Keir Starmer met veterans in 2021, before becoming Prime Minister, but made no promises – and the 2019 offer was not in the 2024 manifesto.
However, the current Defence Secretary John Healey posted on his website in 2021: “UK remains the only nuclear power that refuses them recognition or compensation, unlike the US, France, Canada and Australia.”
Mr James said: “Don’t go back on your word, Mr Starmer… You promised us full compensation and recognition. Keep to your word.”
Lack of detail Dutton Launches Much to Do About Nothing campaign
January 17, 2025 John Lord Australian Independent Media
You might remember the relentless scrutiny that Peter Dutton applied during the Voice referendum regarding Labor’s proposal. He would challenge the Prime Minister each day, demanding more specifics when many felt the key points were already apparent. Like Tony Abbott or Donald Trump, Dutton seems poised to adopt a campaign strategy that embraces a lack of detail in the upcoming election. He plans to present broad, sweeping outlines of potential policies and actions he might pursue in office rather than delving into the intricacies and specifics many voters desire.
A prime example of the shortcomings in leadership is Peter Dutton’s vague and often frustrating approach to nuclear policy, which raises more questions than it answers. The most effective leaders possess a vast reservoir of accurate information, readily available for reference at any moment. John Howard exemplified this quality, as did Kim Beazley and Peter Costello. In recent times, however, there have been few who can match this standard. Julia Gillard stood out for her sharp insights, while Kevin Rudd’s exceptionally agile mind distinguished him from his peers. Anthony Albanese, in particular, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to recall even the slightest of details; a skill honed during his tenure as Minister for Infrastructure, where he developed an almost uncanny depth of knowledge.
It is precisely in this area that Peter Dutton is likely to struggle. During the frenetic pace of an election campaign, when rapid-fire questions bombard a candidate at their most vulnerable, his lack of depth in detail will become apparent. In politics, it is always the meticulous attention to detail that can make or break a leader…………………………………………….
Dutton emerged from a long yawn to play catch-up politics on Sunday, 12 January, to launch the Coalition’s unofficial election campaign.
During a 38-minute hastily put-together address at a rally in Melbourne, he depicted the forthcoming election as a pivotal “sliding doors moment” for the future of Australia. At this event, he unveiled the Coalition’s rallying cry, “Let’s get Australia back on track,” which resonated with the audience eager for detail. Alongside this slogan, Dutton introduced a new brochure that detailed twelve key governing priorities designed to steer the country in a different direction. In his speech, he strongly criticised the current Labor government, labelling it one of the most “incompetent governments” Australia has ever seen (after only three years, he had forgotten his own) and described the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as among the weakest in the nation’s history……..
So, with little detail, Dutton launched his Much to Do About Nothing campaign.
Michelle Grattan wrote about Dutton’s launch:
“What it wasn’t, though, was detailed. The specifics of what a Dutton government would do, and how it would do it, remain unclear.”…… https://theaimn.net/lack-of-detail-dutton-launches-much-to-do-about-nothing-campaign/
TODAY. The world’s blind eye to the nightmare problem of nuclear waste disposal
January 18, 2025 https://theaimn.net/the-worlds-blind-eye-to-the-nightmare-problem-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/
Now if you were to ask an old-fashioned housewife, to prepare a complicated dinner with strong-smelling crayfish, seafoods and vegetables, , she would probably first make sure that there was a suitable garbage bin at hand.
But that’s not the way that the magnificent men in their nuclear machines thought, about the garbage from their concoctions. The American (pro-nuclear) historian Spencer Weart explains how, in the 1950s:
“the press and the public gave the matter only passing attention, preferring to leave nuclear sanitary engineering to officials. Officials left it to nuclear experts, and most nuclear experts left it alone.”
So, they left it alone for a long time.
The authority on matters nuclear – the Atomic Energy Commission – mentioned atomic wastes as a “cumbersome” problem, – going along with the view that it was not a major issue, and technolological development would solve it in the future. The British Ministry of Supply, in 1949, concluded that nuclear waste dumped into sea was “only slightly radioactive and the amount too small ‘to have any harmful effect on fish or on human life.’
Still, even in 1950, one report in the New York Times – “Atomic ‘Cemetery’ Needed for Waste,” a argued that “some kind of national burying place will be needed for the lethal substances;” and warned of the dangers of dumping atomic wastes into the oceans.- “[i]f fish ate the material, scientists fear it might find its way into food used by humans.”
“Expert” thinking about nuclear waste moved on , in the 1950s, to the idea that it could be beneficial. It could be used to generate electricity. It could have a military use -it could be used to create “a lethal radioactive ‘ line’ along a frontier. behind a river, across a peninsula, that would deny an area to the enemy.” In 1956, Lewis L. “Strauss, the head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission said the term ‘atomic waste’ is a misnomer”.
So developed one of the nuclear lobby’s favourite themes over the decades – “Not a Waste, but a Resource”.
However, from 1957 onwards, there was a growing public realisation especially in Europe, that nuclear wastes are dangerous, especially to health, and opposition increased to the dumping of wastes at sea..
It was not until 1993 that nuclear waste dumping at sea was banned, by international treaties – and it’s still not enforced everywhere. So, it has taken the nuclear experts and the various authorities, world-wide, a very long time to take action against the nuclear industry’s most egregious crime against nature
So, where are we today?
Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Becoming a responsible ancestor“– Daniel Metlay gives the most comprehensive account of the USA’s policies, and the authorities’ continuing struggles to tackle the Gordian knot of nuclear wastes. And that’s just from the peaceful nuclear power industry.
On the nuclear weapons industry, also in the Bulletin, Cameron Tracy writes on the- Risks of geologic disposal of weapons plutonium.
Apart from the American experience, the media tells us, generally in glowing, optimistic terms, of the progress of super-costly deep underground facilities in Finland, and soon to come, in Sweden and France.
As if the American or “Western” history of nuclear waste were the whole story, we learn little or nothing about nuclear waste management in Russia, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Japan (except for Fukushima). On the rare occasions when the Western media has mentioned Russia’s nuclear waste history, it is to gloat over what a mess Russia has made of it.
However, the US National Academy of Science and its Russian counterpart met in 1992 , leading to a U.S-Russia pledge in 2000 to reciprocally dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapons plutonium. It was a complicated co-operative effort which fell apart completely by 2016.
The nuclear waste industry bumbles on, with prospects of profits for waste management companies like Holtec, and of “jobs , jobs’, Jobs”. Is the nuclear behometh just too big to be stopped?
There are two questions about nuclear wastes that are never asked by the “experts”, let alone answered by them:
- Why not stop making more nuclear trash?
- Why do the nuclear-power countries not work together, co-operate, in getting rid of the existing global problem of nuclear trash?
Nukes kill kids
Dr Tony Webb, 17 Jan 25
One moment from my work in the USA in the early 1980s stands out in my memory. I’d driven from Chicago to Cleveland at the invitation of the Health and Safety Officer of the US Boilermakers Union to speak to the members meeting held on the night ahead of the recruitment of members for work on the annual ‘clean-up’ of the local Nuclear Power plant. The hired workers would be ‘radiation sponges’ – short-term casuals recruited for the ‘dirty jobs’ that would result in significant radiation exposures sometimes up to the permitted annual exposure limit and ‘let go’ if they reached that limit. The practice offered some protection to the company’s full -time employees whose skills would be needed on an ongoing basis and whose exposures needed to be kept below the limit. The meeting was well attended , rowdy, with a lot of questions and discussion which spilled over into the carpark after the meeting closed. I noticed one man hanging back from the circle and invited him to join and share his thoughts. As I recall them the essences was:
“I will be going in to apply for work tomorrow. I understand what you shared about the risks . . . no safe level of exposure and chance of getting cancer perhaps 20 years from now . . . It will put a roof over my family’s heads and food on the table . . . BUT my wife and i have had all the family we want. If we hadn’t, what you shared about the genetic risks, the damage to our children and future generations . . . no I wouldn’t be going . . . “
It is a sad fact that workers, both men and women will choose, often from necessity, to put their health at risk from the work environment. What is however consistent in my experience of working on radiation and other occupational health and safety issues is that they are far more concerned, cautious and likely to prioritise safety when it comes to risks to their children.
We now have solid evidence that workers in nuclear power plants routinely exposed to radiation face significantly increased cancer risks, risks of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes, dementia and potentially other health effects. There is also an increased risk of genetic damage that can be passed on to their children and future generations. But perhaps most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.
To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government; nuclear kills kids. It matters little whether or not these nuclear plants can be built on time, within budget, make a contribution to climate change, reduce electricity prices, or secure a long-term energy future; these nuclear power plants will kill kids who live close by. They cannot operate without routine releases of radioactive material into the environment and our young will be exposed and are particularly susceptible to any exposure that results.
Now add to that if you care that women are more susceptible than men, that workers in these plants face greater exposure and health risks than adults in the community, that nuclear plants have and will continue to have both major accidents and less major ‘incidents’ resulting in radiation releases, community exposures and consequent health damage. Add also that quite apart from the workers and others exposed when these plants need to be decommissioned, the radioactive wastes resulting from perhaps 30-50 years life will need to be safely stored and kept isolated from human contact for many thousands of years longer than our recorded human history. And, again if you care, also add in the concerns around proliferation of nuclear weapons which historically has occurred on the back of, enabled by and sometimes concealed by countries’ developing so called peaceful nuclear power.
All these arguments add weight to the absurdity of Australia starting and the world continuing down this nuclear power path. But if we want a single issue that strikes at the heart of human concerns it is this – and forgive me saying it again, it needs to be repeated many times until the electorate in Australia hears it loud and clear – Nuclear Kills Kids
Submarine nuclear core project faces ‘challenges’
The Core Production Capability programme, tasked with delivering safe
nuclear reactor cores for the UK’s submarine fleet, remains under pressure
as highlighted in the latest Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA)
Annual Report.
Maintaining its Red rating, the programme faces critical
challenges in achieving key milestones crucial to sustaining the Continuous
At Sea Deterrent (CASD). According to the report, the programme is
fundamental to providing the Royal Navy with the capability to propel the
Dreadnought-class submarines and a “modern, safe, and sovereign
capability to manufacture further cores” for a future fleet of attack
submarines.
This capability is also essential for fulfilling the UK’s
commitments under the AUKUS defence partnership.
UK Defence Journal 17th Jan 2025 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/submarine-nuclear-core-project-faces-challenges/
Lack of detail Dutton Launches Much to Do About Nothing campaign
January 17, 2025 John Lord, AIM,
You might remember the relentless scrutiny that Peter Dutton applied during the Voice referendum regarding Labor’s proposal. He would challenge the Prime Minister each day, demanding more specifics when many felt the key points were already apparent. Like Tony Abbott or Donald Trump, Dutton seems poised to adopt a campaign strategy that embraces a lack of detail in the upcoming election. He plans to present broad, sweeping outlines of potential policies and actions he might pursue in office rather than delving into the intricacies and specifics many voters desire.
A prime example of the shortcomings in leadership is Peter Dutton’s vague and often frustrating approach to nuclear policy, which raises more questions than it answers. The most effective leaders possess a vast reservoir of accurate information, readily available for reference at any moment. John Howard exemplified this quality, as did Kim Beazley and Peter Costello. In recent times, however, there have been few who can match this standard. Julia Gillard stood out for her sharp insights, while Kevin Rudd’s exceptionally agile mind distinguished him from his peers. Anthony Albanese, in particular, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to recall even the slightest of details; a skill honed during his tenure as Minister for Infrastructure, where he developed an almost uncanny depth of knowledge.
It is precisely in this area that Peter Dutton is likely to struggle. During the frenetic pace of an election campaign, when rapid-fire questions bombard a candidate at their most vulnerable, his lack of depth in detail will become apparent. In politics, it is always the meticulous attention to detail that can make or break a leader.
Albanese hit the road running soon after the Christmas dinner table had been cleared and the crockery put away………………………………………………………………………….
Dutton by contrast
Dutton emerged from a long yawn to play catch-up politics on Sunday, 12 January, to launch the Coalition’s unofficial election campaign.
During a 38-minute hastily put-together address at a rally in Melbourne, he depicted the forthcoming election as a pivotal “sliding doors moment” for the future of Australia. At this event, he unveiled the Coalition’s rallying cry, “Let’s get Australia back on track,” which resonated with the audience eager for detail……………………………………..
The Coalition’s slogan will compete with Albanese’s “Building Australia’s future,” which he promoted during his recent campaign in Queensland, the Northern Territory, and Western Australia.
So, with little detail, Dutton launched his Much to Do About Nothing campaign………………………. https://theaimn.net/lack-of-detail-dutton-launches-much-to-do-about-nothing-campaign/
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 