Drink up: Peter Dutton needs one billion empty Coke cans to store his nuclear waste
Jim Green, Oct 26, 2024,
https://jimkgreen1.substack.com/p/drink-up-peter-dutton-needs-one-billion
Australia’s federal opposition leader Peter Dutton claims that: “If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year.”
Let’s help him out with the maths.
Here are the figures on waste generated across the nuclear fuel cycle to operate one conventional light-water uranium reactor (1,000 megawatts (MW) or 1 gigawatt (GW)) for one year:
1. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings waste at uranium mines (unless it is an in-situ leach mine, which doesn’t produce tailings waste but does pollute groundwater e.g. the Beverley Four Mile and Honeymoon mines in SA).
Here’s a rough calculation: 10 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings waste are generated at the SA Olympic Dam uranium mine per year to produce enough uranium for 25 power reactors, which equates to 400,000 tonnes of tailings waste per reactor per year.
That equates to approx. 230,000 cubic metres or 1,050 million (1.05 billion) Coke cans of tailings waste … just to produce enough uranium for one reactor for one year. (The volume of one Coke can is 380 cubic centimetres or 0.00038 cubic metres (m3).)
2. About 170 tonnes of depleted uranium waste at enrichment plants (to supply one reactor for one year). That equates to 34 m3 or approx. 89,000 empty Coke cans.
3. 25-30 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (high-level nuclear waste) per year. The volume is about 10 cubic metres. Mr. Dutton would need 26,000 empty Coke cans. There is no operating deep underground repository for high-level waste anywhere in the world, and the only operating deep repository for intermediate-level waste, WIPP in the USA, suffered a chemical explosion in an underground nuclear waste barrel in 2014 due to lax management, cost cutting and inadequate regulation.
Another 300 m3 of low- and intermediate-level waste generated at a conventional 1 GW nuclear power plant per year, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. This comprises contaminated equipment, liquid waste, etc. Another 790,000 Coke cans.
There are also large and problematic waste streams at nuclear reprocessing plants if the spent fuel is reprocessed (about one-third of spent fuel is reprocessed, the other two-thirds is stored pending disposal). Let’s assume the spent fuel is not reprocessed.
Overall, to hold the waste generated across the nuclear fuel cycle to operate a 1 GW reactor for one year, Mr. Dutton needs over one billion empty Coke cans per year.
Excluding the front-end waste (at uranium mines and enrichment plants), and including only the waste generated at nuclear power plants, Mr. Dutton needs 816,000 empty Coke cans per year.
Just the spent nuclear fuel alone requires 26,000 empty Coke cans per year.
Small modular reactors
The Coalition proposes large, gigawatt-scale reactors in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, and small modular reactors (SMRs) in SA and WA.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume Mr. Dutton’s 450 MW SMRs are based on conventional light-water uranium technology, like the US NuScale design or the UK Rolls-Royce design or Russia’s floating plant.
And let’s ignore complications like plans to use higher-enriched uranium fuel (known as HALEU) in SMRs (resulting in lower volumes of more toxic waste) and let’s ignore SMR inefficiencies (resulting in more waste per unit of electricity generated compared to large reactors).
So we can simply scale the figures down from a 1 GW reactor.
For a 450 MW SMR (the size contemplated by Rolls-Royce), Mr. Dutton would need over 450 million empty Coke cans per year to accommodate waste generated across the nuclear fuel cycle.
Excluding front-end waste (at uranium mines and enrichment plants), he would need 367,000 empty Coke cans per year.
Just the spent nuclear fuel alone would require about 11,700 empty Coke cans per year.
A question for Mr. Dutton: what does he plan to do with all those Coke cans filled with nuclear waste?
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and co-author of the ACF’s new report, ‘Power Games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia’.
Crew members on Royal Navy nuclear submarine left with ‘low supplies’ and suffering fatigue
Medics reportedly feared for a ‘serious loss of life’ after plans to resupply the vessel failed to materialise
Holly Evans, 25 Oct 24,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nuclear-submarine-royal-navy-uk-b2635513.html
Medics on a Royal Navy nuclear submarine were reportedly left fearing a “serious loss of life” after crew members were forced to share food when supplies ran low.
During a six-month patrol, crew began to suffer from fatigue with mistakes caused by concentration lapses, while the vessel closed its honesty shop over fears of hoarding.
Navy chiefs reportedly asked the crew to hand in any supplies of chocolate or sweets and off-duty sailors were instructed to sleep to conserve calories and limit their movements.
A source told The Sun: “It was miserable. If you weren’t on watch your movements were limited to conserve energy and encouraged to sleep to burn less calories.”
They added: “Medical staff raised concerns about a serious loss of life due to fatigue and people either not concentrating or falling asleep on critical duties.”
The Vanguard-class vessel, which has not been named for security reasons, had been due to resupply at sea but had been unable to do so.
A former submarine captain said the conditions onboard the vessel were “horrific”.
Due to the shortage of available submarines, patrols have been extended for six-months rather than the usual customary 80 days.
One submarine, which forms part of the UK’s nuclear deterrent force, is always on patrol with their location remaining top secret, with sailors only allowed to receive one 40-word message each week that is censored for bad news.
The Royal Navy has emphasised that robust practices and procedures are always in place to ensure the safety of its crew on operations.
It comes three weeks after the head of the Royal Navy apologised after an investigation found “misogyny, bullying and other unacceptable behaviours” in the submarine service.
There was at least one report of rape, and women suffered lewd comments and sexual gestures, an official report has revealed.
Weep for Gaza, the Palestinians, weep for the Jews
It has now become so horrible – is the world turning away? Is it atrocity fatigue?
Look at the courage of the Jewish people in B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, based in Jerusalem. If they have the guts to speak out – why is everybody else – especially the Biden administration and the corporate media pretending it’s all OK?
As I’ve pointed out before – there was some excuse for the Western world pretending not to notice the atrocity- the genocide – going on in Germany 1936 – 1945, because it was not so widely known – no big media coverage in the press and radio then available.
There’s no excuse now – with extraordinary journalistic evidence coming out daily – first hand videos, audios, – the courage of ordinary people and those few journalists still able to report from Gaza. Israel stops journalists from entering Gaza, and kills those who are there.
Apart from the small matter of Israel’s military aggression leading to World War 3, the Israeli government’s systematic killing of Gazans has reached a point where it is so horrendous and should be stopped now while there are still some Gazans left.
How can the world continue to believe the blitherings of Blinken and Biden?
Biden could stop the Gaza killings today – could stop supplying the weapons to Israel
Apart from the horrors suffered by the Palestinians right now – what’s going to happen to the Jews after all this?
In the USA, we have the absurdity of the arresting of Jews who protested against this Gaza genocide – and these Jews are being called “anti-semitic”.
In fact – anti-semitism is on the rise – because people are confusing the barbarity of the Netanyahu government with true Jewish religion.
While many of us – distant onlookers – feel for the suffering of the Palestinians – we may later also feel for Jews worldwide – perhaps victims of a new wave of anti-semitism.
UK Snubs Council of Europe Over Assange Inquiry
Politicians across Europe want Britain to investigate why the WikiLeaks founder spent five years in jail.
MARK CURTIS, 25 October 2024, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-snubs-council-of-europe-over-assange-inquiry/
Britain’s Home Office is making a “grave mistake” by ignoring a call from the Council of Europe to review its treatment of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder’s wife has warned.
The Council’s parliamentary assembly, of which the UK is a member, passed a resolution earlier this month designating Assange as a “political prisoner”.
Assange endured five years in Belmarsh maximum security prison in London before being released in June, and flying to his native Australia. The UK government had incarcerated him while the US pursued extradition proceedings in the British courts.
His treatment has outraged the Council of Europe, which was created in the aftermath of World War Two with strong backing from Winston Churchill.
Its resolution urged the UK authorities to conduct a review “with a view to establishing whether he [Assange] has been exposed to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to their international obligations”.
It found the UK authorities “failed to effectively protect Mr Assange’s freedom of expression and right to liberty, exposing him to lengthy detention in a high-security prison despite the political nature of the most severe charges against him.”
Declassified asked Britain’s Home Office what its response was to the Council of Europe’s call.
The government department deflected the question, replying: “The longstanding extradition request for Julian Assange has been resolved. As is standard practice, all extradition requests are considered on an individual basis by our independent courts and in accordance with UK law.”
The demands of the parliamentary assembly are not binding on European governments but they are “obliged to respond”.
‘Cover-up’
Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, told Declassified the Home Office is making a “grave mistake” in refusing to heed the Council of Europe’s call.
She said: “We know that the Crown Prosecution Service has disappeared key documents relating to Julian’s imprisonment and refused to provide information, first to a journalist, and now to the court, that might shed a light on the political side of Julian’s persecution in the UK.
“It is one thing for rogue elements in the CPS to collude with foreign governments to persecute a publisher and attempt to cover their tracks. It is quite another for the UK government to stonewall in this manner in the wake of an independent report by the Council of Europe and a vote by the overwhelming majority of the chamber calling on the UK to carry out an investigation.”
She added: “The UK government is effectively partaking in the cover-up, in a way that only a guilty party would.”
‘Psychological torture’
Assange’s detention in maximum security Belmarsh was “out of proportion in relation to his alleged offence”, the Council of Europe’s resolution found.
It recalled the findings of the then United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, that Assange had been exposed to “progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture”.
Melzer’s report, produced in 2019 while Assange had secured asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, called on UK officials to be investigated for possible “criminal conduct” in their treatment of Assange. It was never reported in the UK national media.
The Council of Europe found that the UK authorities “appear to have ignored” Melzer’s findings.
Its resolution was passed with 88 in favour, 13 against and 20 abstentions. All four UK members of the parliamentary assembly voted against, including Lord Richard Keen, a Conservative peer, who expressed a dissenting opinion.
Keen argued that it was “legally incorrect” to find that Assange had been detained unlawfully, as he had violated bail conditions before and was considered a flight risk.
Keen also rejected the accusation of torture against the UK, saying that Assange’s “regrettable psychological state” identified by Melzer was due to Assange’s “self-imposed lengthy isolation in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and cannot be blamed on the UK authorities.”
‘Chilling effect’
The Council of Europe concluded that the treatment of Assange “creates a dangerous chilling effect and a climate of self-censorship affecting all journalists, publishers and others reporting matters essential for the functioning of a democratic society”.
It added: “It severely undermines the role of the press and the protection of journalists and whistle-blowers around the world.”
The resolution also noted that the Council was “alarmed” by reports that the US Central Intelligence Agency had covertly surveyed Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and was allegedly developing plans to poison or even assassinate him on UK soil.
Rebecca Vincent, campaigns director at Reporters Without Borders, told us that Julian Assange’s sentencing by UK courts to 50 weeks in prison for breaking bail was “disproportionate”.
She added: “His subsequent prolonged detention in a high-security prison with no charges against him in the UK, held purely on remand, constituted a gross violation of his rights.”
Vincent said: “We faced unusual restrictions from UK authorities in trying to do our jobs advocating in this case, including extreme difficulties securing consistent access to monitor extradition proceedings against Assange in UK courts, and access to visit him in Belmarsh prison. These aspects all merit a serious independent review.”
Union slams “false hope” in nuclear push, warns energy jobs at risk
Marion Rae, Oct 23, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/union-slams-false-hope-in-nuclear-push-warns-energy-jobs-at-risk/
Queensland’s sparkies have been warned of the “huge risk” to thousands of jobs in renewable energy posed by nuclear plans.
The Electrical Trades Union told electricians and apprentices in a mass mailout on Wednesday that nuclear energy was a “radioactive pipe dream” that could not replace coal-fired power stations.
National policy director Katie Hepworth says the “false hope” offered by the LNP on the premise that coal-powered stations can keep running is “letting down coal communities”.
“The ETU members, our maintenance workers, who work in these power stations know that they’re being held together by all the will in the world, but they know they can’t hold on forever,” Dr Hepworth told AAP.
“There is a huge risk that if what they’re being given is a fantasy of a nuclear power station without an entire industrial plan and a renewable plan, that they’re just going to be thrown on the scrap heap again.”
Apprentices are among those voting for the first time on Saturday when Queensland goes to the polls.
Dr Hepworth said the ETU was trying to give them a vision of the economy they were stepping into as the next generation of workers.
She said there was “huge excitement” among apprentices in the type of work they would be able to do, such as working on EVs, installing appliances and building clean energy generation.
“By calling into question that renewable transition, we’re really putting all of that at risk,” Dr Hepworth said.
The union’s Nuclear Energy Report for 2024 found nuclear reactors would be more expensive, could not be built before coal exits the electricity grid, and were “simply unnecessary” given abundant renewable energy sources.
The report authored by Dr Hepworth found nuclear power would be the most expensive form of energy for Australia, at 1.5 to three times the cost per kilowatt hour of coal-fired electricity and four to eight times of solar.
Small modular reactors, still unproven on a commercial scale, would be even more costly, the CSIRO has estimated.
The Smart Energy Council has calculated the federal opposition’s proposed fleet of seven nuclear reactors at up to $600 billion, for a mere four per cent of energy supply in the grid.
Nor can nuclear power be considered a clean source of energy because radioactive waste management was “costly, complex, contested and unresolved” in Australia and globally, Dr Hepworth said.
Even countries with existing nuclear capability are choosing renewables over nuclear, including China, because of the speed of deployment, and because the cost curve is low and continues to fall.
The federal opposition’s nationwide nuclear plan, includes two Queensland sites for nuclear generation – the Callide and Tarong coal-fired power stations.
“The Queensland LNP is committed to affordable, reliable and sustainable power,” an LNP spokeswoman told AAP.
“Keeping the lights on at Callide with our Electricity Maintenance Guarantee will ensure power bills are affordable, reliable and sustainable until alternatives are ready to power Queensland,” she said.
Union boss Peter Ong said massive changes to the energy system were already affecting workers and the union had been working hard to move them into well-paid, secure jobs.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy will throw ETU members’ jobs in the gutter,” he said.
Australia the guinea pig for the safety risks of USA deploying their nuclear submarines on the land of their “friends”?
Why nuclear inspections in Australia have suddenly spiked
The Age, By Matt Wade, October 26, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/national/why-nuclear-inspections-in-australia-have-suddenly-spiked-20241023-p5kkrl.html
International inspections of Australia’s nuclear facilities and materials have increased by a third in the past year as the nation’s nuclear risk profile changes due to AUKUS.
Since Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, it is required to submit to regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify compliance with nuclear safeguards.
Dr Geoffrey Shaw, director general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), which ensures compliance with nuclear treaties, said there has been “a 30 per cent increase in inspections in Australia in the last couple of years”.
Under AUKUS, the navy will acquire nuclear-propelled submarines, and Shaw said that has raised Australia’s “risk setting” with the IAEA.
“This country is now going to be acquiring naval nuclear propulsion – it will have high enriched uranium in a country where we don’t currently have high enriched uranium,” he said. “That changes the equation.”
Australia’s nuclear proliferation risk profile is low; it has one research nuclear reactor in Sydney, which uses low-enriched uranium, three uranium mines and some institutions and companies permitted to handle nuclear materials.
But Shaw said the IAEA wants more assurances that there are no undeclared nuclear activities. It is now conducting inspections across the country with “as short as two-hour notification”.
In the year to June 2024, the IAEA made 22 inspections at locations including the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), universities, defence facilities and private companies. That compares with 16 the previous year.
The first AUKUS submarines are due to be delivered to the Australian navy in the late 2030s.
When Australia, a non-nuclear-armed nation, acquires nuclear-propelled submarines, a “first-of-a-kind” regulatory approach will be needed to ensure the nation complies with its non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Corey Hinderstein, acting principal deputy administrator of America’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said the nuclear safeguards developed in Australia for AUKUS will set a global benchmark for other nations that seek naval nuclear propulsion.
“We know that there are other countries that are interested in developing or partnering on naval nuclear propulsion programs, and those countries are by and large non-nuclear weapon states under the NPT, so they will have the safeguards obligation,” she said………………… https://www.theage.com.au/national/why-nuclear-inspections-in-australia-have-suddenly-spiked-20241023-p5kkrl.html
Electric Boat Slows Down Submarine Production Because of Delayed Parts
The Maritime Executive, 4 Oct 24
On Wednesday, in a confirmation of the concerns of U.S. Navy leadership, the head of General Dynamics said that her company would be slowing down the pace of construction on new submarines to match the behind-schedule pace of component deliveries.
GD’s Electric Boat division and Huntington Ingalls Industries build the Navy’s Virginia-class and future Columbia-class nuclear-powered subs. Beset by workforce and supply-chain issues, both programs have been hit with long delays – more than a year in the case of the Columbia-class. The Navy says that it can’t afford to wait for its stealthiest and deadliest platforms in an era of great power competition, and it has invested billions in infrastructure and workforce initiatives to shore up the submarine industrial base, with unclear results……………………………………………………. more https://maritime-executive.com/article/electric-boat-slows-down-sub-production-because-of-delayed-parts
I’ll be the best friend you ever had, Peter Dutton promises miners
ABC, By chief digital political correspondent Jacob Greber, 26 Oct 24
In short:
Peter Dutton wants to fast-track more than 420 mining and energy projects if the Coalition wins government…………..
Peter Dutton will jettison Australia’s medium-term carbon budget by “turbocharging” a pipeline of more than 420 mining and energy projects as part of a broader pledge to make himself the best friend the resources sector has “ever had”.
“I want to see more excavators digging, more gas flowing, and more trucks moving,” Mr Dutton will tell the Minerals Council of Australia conference in Canberra on Wednesday morning.
……………………………………………………… Conservation groups are likely to be alarmed by Mr Dutton’s unabashedly pro-resources pitch given a significant portion of the potential pipeline includes high-emissions gas and coal projects.
If they were all to be approved, the nation’s international pledge to cut emissions by 43 per cent in 2030 would likely collapse under a Coalition government.
…………………”And I want to lean into growing opportunities like critical minerals, rare earths and uranium.”
………………….He will also move to limit the ability of third parties, including some Indigenous groups, to challenge decisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act…………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-10/peter-dutton-mining-best-friend-renewables-weapons/104334636?fbclid=IwY2xjawGJdiRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUWLGwbckO97hXoFhsOwoCItJ235y1Q_QaHLBY43_QY9zxxEYL-AI60fCQ_aem_6-Je95cEWe3TOYTXCeGLNA
Too old, too expensive: Coal can’t wait for nuclear, says energy regulator
SMH, Mike Foley, October 24, 2024
Australia’s top independent energy officials are warning the nation’s fleet of coal power plants is too old and costly to keep running until Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposed nuclear reactors are ready to replace them.
A high-stakes parliamentary inquiry began on Thursday with witnesses from national energy agencies and nuclear authorities. It was launched to expose flaws in the opposition’s nuclear policy, but has the potential to backfire as the Coalition challenges the costs of the government’s ambitious renewable energy rollout.
The opposition has dubbed its energy election pitch a “coal-to-nuclear plan”, which would cut short the government’s renewables rollout and establish seven emissions-free nuclear plants across the country from 2035 to help the nation reach net zero by 2050.
However, Australian Energy Regulator chair Clare Savage, who heads the agency that develops the regulations for the electricity market, raised a hurdle for the opposition when she said Australia would only be ready to start building nuclear plants by the time coal plants have all but disappeared
“We cannot keep the current coal fleet running long enough for nuclear to be here,” Savage told the hearing.
The timeline for a nuclear fleet is a crucial issue because Australia’s coal-fired power plants, which supply upwards of 50 per cent of power in the electricity grid, must be replaced by 2035.
Coal plants are bringing forward closure dates as ageing equipment becomes less reliable and less competitive against cheaper renewables. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects 90 per cent of them to shut within 10 years.
Under the Albanese government’s plan, renewables will replace coal under its goal to raise the share of electricity from wind, solar and batteries to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
The opposition has said that coal plants should not shut “prematurely”, and it plans to start bringing the first nuclear plant online by 2037 and completing its rollout of six more before 2050
Savage said that based on her experience, it would take eight to 10 years to establish the rules needed to govern nuclear power before construction could begin.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said it could take about 10 years to build the first reactor in Australia after industry regulations have been established.
…………………… nuclear power is currently outlawed in state and federal laws and Savage said it would take many years to overcome this hurdle and establish inter-jurisdictional regimes. …………………….. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-old-too-expensive-coal-can-t-wait-for-nuclear-says-energy-regulator-20241024-p5kkxn.html
BHP’s untenable extraction of Great Artesian Basin waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine.
Jim Green, 26 Oct 24. BHP has had to move on Mound Springs protection issues regarding untenable extraction of GAB waters for the Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine, and an important Springs Study had now been released by SA Gov modelling reduced water extraction scenarios and affects on Springs & GAB waters.
A significant – if belated and partial – formal public commitment from BHP:
Milestone : FY2030 – cease abstraction from Wellfield A through switching to coastal desalination supply in partnership with the South Australian Government on the Northern Water Supply Project.
This partial win is a key if limited step toward proper protection for the unique and fragile Mound Springs of the GAB in SA, requiring:
is a key if limited step toward proper protection for the unique and fragile Mound Springs of the GAB in SA, requiring:
- closure of untenable BHP Wellfield A operations as soon as possible, that is warranted far sooner than by end of FY2030;
- BHP could prioritise and pay for whatever extent of water recovery at Olympic Dam to replace continued extraction from Wellfield A, which is projected to be run at 3.9 million litres a day ( Ml/d ) over next few years – about 10% of the volume BHP water take from the GAB;
- a campaign path to realise a phase out of the far larger adversely impacting Wellfield B operations that runs at 32 Ml/day, at least from when Northern Water supply becomes available at/after 2028 (this is difficult as BHP & SA Gov now think closing Wellfield A is all they have to do);
- a continued public interest campaign building on a lot of people’s roles and contributions over time…
an important Springs Study:
“Potential Impacts of Reducing Groundwater Abstraction from the Southwestern Great Artesian Basin: Modelled Aquifer Pressure and Spring Flow Response”
By Daniel Partington, Andrew Love, Daniel Wohling, Mark Keppel.
Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 2024/01https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/84866/widgets/401081/documents/297652
see an extract from Goyder Institute Springs Study (at p.21 of doc & at p.31 of the pdf file, my bold below) citing the BHP commitment:
3.5 Output From the Modelled Scenarios Six experimental abstraction scenarios were proposed by Infrastructure SA to provide a spectrum of stimuli to assess the responsiveness of the aquifer to a change in abstraction volumes. The future abstraction rates from Wellfield A and B have not been confirmed, however there has been public commitment to cease abstraction from Wellfield A if water from the Northern Water project is available (see Olympic Dam Context- Based Water Targets).
The price of nuclear in a cost of living crisis – media briefing
October 25, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/the-price-of-nuclear-in-a-cost-of-living-crisis-media-briefing/#google_vignette
The Climate Council
Australians are being told to look to the Canadian province of Ontario as a case study for why we should embrace nuclear energy. But is Ontario’s nuclear experience really the success story it’s made out to be? Join us on Monday, October 28 at 10:00 AM AEST (join HERE) for a critical briefing where an expert from Ontario will fact-check these claims and provide an analysis of the comparative costs of nuclear, gas, and renewables.
With a federal committee on Nuclear Energy now underway, and a cost-of-living federal election approaching, this briefing – hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council – will focus on the costs and timelines of alternative energy options for Australia.
Our panel of respected experts will cover topics such as:
- Is nuclear energy in Ontario really providing cheap and clean power as Peter Dutton claims?
- The long-term costs of maintaining nuclear reactors
- Comparing the cost of new nuclear infrastructure with renewable alternatives
- How energy choices will impact household bills and cost of living
Speakers:
- Prof. Mark Winfield, York University (Canada) – academic and author specialising in energy and environment
- Dylan McConnell, Energy Analyst
- Nicki Hutley, Economist and Climate Councillor
The briefing will be held on Monday, October 28th at 10:00 AM AEST. You can join by clicking this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82731815067?pwd=sDJwgpUT8GfwMohXPbGdHTu9i9TK5w.1
We look forward to seeing you there.
The Climate Council is Australia’s leading community-funded climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.
For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au
Or follow us on social media: facebook.com/climatecouncil and twitter.com/climatecouncil
Fighting for More Evidence of Assange’s Political Prosecution
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has been in court trying to get some missing emails — or data about them — that could further expose the political motivation behind the prosecution of the WikiLeaks publisher.
Joe Lauria and Mohamed Elmaazi / Consortium News, October 23, 2024
A tribunal in Britain is set to decide whether to order the government’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prove it deleted emails that may have covered up more evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Julian Assange.
The three judges heard arguments on Sept. 24 in the nearly decade-long freedom of information saga regarding the emails that top British prosecutors say were deleted.
They involved an exchange with Sweden during a Swedish prosecutor’s attempt, beginning in 2010, to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher from Britain. ……………………………………………………….
It was only when the U.S. realized it would lose on appeal after a four-year extradition battle that the Department of Justice cut a plea deal with Assange who was released on June 24 and returned to his native Australia.
Assange had been charged in the United States under the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes.
Britain took an active role in Assange’s prosecution. Its Crown Prosecution Service sought to stop Sweden from going to the embassy to question him.
Seeking to learn more about Britain’s role against Assange, Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi first made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2015 for all emails between the British and Swedish governments concerning Assange.
Some of the emails she obtained showed political motivation on the part of the lead British prosecutor, Paul Close. One email Maurizi obtained from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) revealed that Close appeared to be pressuring Swedish prosecutors to continue seeking Assange’s extradition instead of dropping the case or questioning him at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum………………………….
After Maurizi noticed a sizeable gap in the emails released to her she filed another FIOA seeking to obtain the missing emails.
The CPS first claimed that it had destroyed the emails. It said that when Close retired, his account along with his emails, were automatically destroyed.
But Maurizi did not buy it. She asked the court at the hearing last month to order the CPS to turn over “metadata” — data about data, such as file creation and modification dates, email sender and recipient addresses, timestamps, email routing information, keywords, and subject lines — proving the emails really were deleted and when.
“We have NO certainty whatsoever” that the emails were destroyed, Maurizi wrote in a message to Consortium News. Maurizi is in court because she believes the allegedly deleted emails could provide additional evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Assange.
……………………………………………‘When, How & Why’ Were the Emails Deleted?
Maurizi, who travelled to London from Rome to attend the Sept. 24 hearing at the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), is challenging the ongoing failure of the CPS to respond adequately to her December 2019 FOIA about the missing emails.
………………………………………………………………….Maurizi is betting the tribunal will agree with her that metadata is clearly information that can be requested under the Act and which can clearly be provided with little difficulty. If she succeeds, future FOIA requests will also be able to demand metadata if and when an individual thinks it may be useful.
Hillary, who was called to testify for the CPS, freely admitted to the tribunal that she could easily provide the metadata Maurizi requested and that she would be happy to do so, as long as any information which identified individuals is redacted.
The tribunal will also consider whether to “order the CPS to carry out a proper, full search for information held” as to “when, how and why?” the thousands of emails were allegedly deleted while Assange’s Swedish extradition case was still very much active.
No date has yet been set for the announcement of the tribunal’s decision. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/10/23/fighting-for-more-evidence-of-assanges-political-prosecution/
Nuclear lobby on track to sabotage COP29
By Noel Wauchope | 24 October 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/nuclear-lobby-on-track-to-sabotage-cop29,19101
The nuclear lobby is on track to sabotage the COP29 UN Climate Change Conference next month in Azerbaijan — lobbying governments for support and investors for money, writes Noel Wauchope.
IT’S NOT SO LONG AGO that the global nuclear energy lobby used to deny the threat of climate change. Even as recently as 2020, a leading nuclear propagandist, Michael Shellenger, was downplaying climate change, while trashing renewable energy.
But that’s changed.
In the face of public anxieties about nuclear health and safety dangers – and above all, of nuclear costs – the propagandists desperately needed a new shtick.
The answer was — nuclear power to beat climate change!
COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023 — the global nuclear lobby trumpeted its “success”
But, in reality, only a tiny minority at COP28 agreed that nuclear power was needed to address global warming.
198 Parties (197 countries plus the European Union) attended this climate summit in Dubai in 2023. Only 22 agreed to the pro-nuclear declaration proposed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron — the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero.
And, 31 countries that do have nuclear power — why didn’t Russia and China sign up?
Thirteen other countries that have key nuclear programs were also missing from the declaration — five in Europe (Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain), two in South Asia (India and Pakistan) three in the Americas (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico), South Africa (the only nuclear energy producer in Africa), and Iran.
COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference November 2024, Baku, Azerbaijan
The global nuclear lobby is much better organised now — and will try again.
It’s well to keep in mind that the United Nations is beholden to the nuclear industry.
On 28th May 1959, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – not yet two years old! – and The World Health Organisation (WHO) signed an agreement referred to as WHA 12-40. Though, it might, on paper, appear balanced and reciprocal, in practice the WHA 12-40 puts WHO in a subordinate position to the IAEA.
So, the United Nations (UN) is tethered to the nuclear industry. The IAEA is part of the UN system — and its brief is to promote the “peaceful” nuclear industry.
COP29 is all about the money
So, the global nuclear push is well prepared with the recent release of an IAEA report on Climate Change and Nuclear Power focussing on the need for investment.
‘The 2024 edition of the IAEA’s Climate Change and Nuclear Power report has been released, highlighting the need for a significant increase in investment to achieve goals for expanding nuclear power.’
According to the report, global investment in nuclear energy must increase to USD$125 billion annually – up from the around USD$50 billion invested each year from 2017-2023 – to meet the IAEA’s high case projection for nuclear capacity in 2050.
The more aspirational goal of tripling capacity – which more than 20 countries pledged to work towards at COP28 last year – would require upwards of USD$150 billion in annual investment.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said:
“Across its near century-long lifetime, a nuclear power plant is affordable and cost-competitive. Financing the upfront costs can be a challenge however, especially in market-driven economies and developing countries, ….the private sector will increasingly need to contribute to financing, but so too will other institutions. The IAEA is engaging multilateral development banks to highlight their potential role in making sure that developing countries have more and better financing options when it comes to investing in nuclear energy.”
The new report also examines ways to unlock private-sector finance — a topic that is gaining increasing attention worldwide.
Last month, 14 major financial institutions including some of the world’s largest banks came together during a New York Climate Week event to signal a willingness to help finance nuclear newbuild projects.
On the sidelines of Climate Week in New York City, major banks, government representatives and industry executives met at the Financing the Tripling of Nuclear Energy Leadership Event.
Note that this event was sponsored by the IAEA and the Clean Energy Ministerial’s (CEM) Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE) initiative. The CEM’s role is to run forums for propagandising the nuclear industry.
The IAEA report continues:
‘Nuclear power’s inclusion in sustainable financing frameworks, including the European Union (EU) taxonomy for sustainable activities, is having a tangible impact. In the EU, the first green bonds have been issued for nuclear power in Finland and France in 2023. Electricité de France (EDF) was one of the first recipients, with the award of €4 billion in green bonds and around €7 billion in green loans between 2022 and 2024.’
The report makes the case for policy reform and international partnerships to help bridge the financing gap and accelerate nuclear power expansion into emerging markets and developing economies — including for small modular reactors.
What does this mean for COP29?
Well, despite the IAEA hype, the nuclear push at COP28 was a bit of a flop.
Forcefully led by France, which is stuck with its unfortunate situation of nuclear monopoly on its energy system. The pro-nuclear declaration was not a global success.
The aim then was to get governments to promote the industry. And, that’s still the aim, despite the pleas for private investment.
But the two go together – lobbying governments to weaken safety regulations, assume the financial risk and provide tax breaks and incentives – while simultaneously encouraging investors about government support.
Ideally, like France, governments could nationalise the nuclear industry. After all, the taxpayer is the most reliable customer.
Sustainability campaigner and author, Jonathon Porritt, predicts COP 29 will be:
‘Baku will be worse than Dubai – as the capital of an even more corrupt, even more misogynistic, and more autocratic petrostate than the UEA.’
The polluting industries will be there in force to counter any real action — as they did in 2023.
In a happy partnership with them will be Rafael Grossi and his nuclear crew.
The much-touted nuclear resurgence – if it happens at all – will be so long coming that it will be irrelevant to the galloping global heating.
Meanwhile, the nuclear push will enable coal, oil and gas to rocket on — while investment in renewable energy will be stymied.
Climate is the big argument. That is for now.
If they win world acceptance that financing nuclear power is essential for climate action, the nuclear lobby can then go on to erase other lingering concerns — on health, safety, wastes, weapons proliferation, indigenous rights.
The world media has dutifully regurgitated the promotion of those mythical beasts — the small nuclear reactors (SMRs).
The digital age – so far – has enabled such myths to be widely promoted and widely accepted.
Ever-increasing AI is becoming accepted as essential — along with its ever-increasing lust for electricity.
I see the global belief in “nuclear for climate” as the first of many global successes in perpetrating lies.
TODAY. Behind the really nasty “NICE” nuclear energy push to control the November COP Climate Change Conference
Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
The billionaires and other manipulators have been planning this for years
Their goal is to direct United Nations policy, and the finances for climate action, towards the nuclear industry . Their motives are mixed, but MONEY is the big one.
The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, more commonly known as COP29, will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan from 11 to 22 November, 2024.
The nuclear push is led by a relatively small phalanx of wealthy, powerful individuals – not many in number, compared to the many thousands of people who have qualms about the nuclear lobby running the show at Azerbaijan . But of course, the nuke lobby will be helped along by the fossil fuel giants. If nuclear is accepted as the cure for climate change, there will be a delay of decades for nuclear power to get going again – which means that oil, gas, coal will have full sway.
Nuclear and fossil fuel energies are partners in this crime against our planet.
Even at the 2015 COP Paris Climate Agreement, nuclear ‘influencers’ like Ernest Moniz and Bill Gates were touting the plan – nuclear as the cheap way to fund climate action. A plan quickly taken up by Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg – forming the Breakthrough Institute
Now it was time to really go for the tax-payers’ money, as Bill Gates launched Mission Innovation – to “increase government support” for new generation nuclear technologies. Mission Innovation involves 24 national governments, including the USA, Canada, China and India, the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank.
Joyce Nelson has outlined the development of this “nuclear for climate” push, kicking off the new enthusiasm for small nuclear reactors, especially in Canada, around 2018. No surprise that the scandal-ridden company SNC-Lavalin jumped onto this bandwagon, forming a consortium the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA)
By 2018, Gates was launching Breakthrough Energy Europe, a collaboration with the European Commission. In 1919 Canada hosted the Clean Energy Ministerial/Mission Innovation summit launching NICE -the “Nuclear Innovation Clean Energy Future”
M.V. Ramana warned in advance of the summit, “Note to Ministers from 25 countries: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”
I doubt that the COP 29 summit has any credibility with intelligent people. Held in Azerbaijan, one of the world’s worst petrochemical autocracies, this supposed climate action meeting will be one blatant front for the fossil fuel lobby, as well as the nuclear one.
Sad to have the United Nations sponsoring this pack of liars.
Potential issues’ with Coalition’s planned nuclear reactor sites, safety expert warns
Government agencies and departmental officials spend full day scrutinising Peter Dutton’s controversial plan to build seven nuclear power plants.
Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, 24 Oct 24
A senior government nuclear safety official says the sites of coal-fired power plants “might not be adequate” to house the opposition’s proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors.
Government agencies and departmental officials were grilled in parliament on Wednesday at a government-backed inquiry into nuclear energy. The inquiry was tasked with scrutinising the Coalition’s controversial plan to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear power and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites.
Several officials told the inquiry it would take at least 10 to 15 years to start generating nuclear power once a future government confirmed an intention to build reactors.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has said the Coalition expects to be able to build a small reactor by 2035 or a larger reactor as early as 2037.
The Coalition has said putting reactors at the sites of coal-fired power stations would reduce the need to build expensive transmission lines and towers to connect renewables to the grid.
At Wednesday’s inquiry, the Nationals MP Darren Chester asked the chief regulatory officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Jim Scott, if that approach could save time.
Scott said it likely would, but added that this “presupposes that the sites of current coal-fired plants would be adequate for nuclear sites, because that might not be the case”.
He said: “You have to look at external events – flooding, natural events – that could occur. That’s part of the siting process. Given that, the potential issue [is] that the sites of current coal-fired plants might not be adequate for nuclear plants.”
Simon Duggan, a deputy secretary in the energy department, listed some of the steps that would be needed for nuclear to go ahead, including setting up management frameworks for health, safety, security, environmental impacts, as well as transport of nuclear fuels and waste, storage of waste and the workforce capability to build, maintain and regulate plants.
“Based on the work and the assessments that you have seen from bodies such as CSIRO and the [International Energy Agency] you are looking at around a 10- to 15-year timeframe to put all those prerequisites in place in order to have nuclear power capability in Australia,” Duggan said.
Many officers raised the issue of social licence and community consultation, saying this would be a critical step if any nuclear reactors were to be built in the future.
The opposition energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, who is also deputy chair of the inquiry, attacked analysis from the energy department which the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said showed the Coalition’s plan would mean a gap of at least 18% between electricity supply and demand.
Duggan said the analysis was based on assumptions supplied by the minister, where there would be no new investment in renewable energy, and that coal-fired power stations would stick to the closure schedule assumed by the Australian Energy Market Operator…………………………………………….
Clare Savage, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, told the inquiry she did not believe nuclear could be deployed in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants, which she said were becoming increasingly less reliable as they aged.
She told the inquiry that on the same day of the hearing, 26% of the total capacity of Australia’s coal-fired power fleet was offline. Eleven per cent of the coal fleet was down due to unplanned outages, she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/24/peter-dutton-nuclear-plant-sites-issues
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 