TODAY: The “tech bros” are going to have a global party with AI in warfare. Should we let them be in control?
Today I waded through a very worthy article – A new military-industrial complex: How tech bros are hyping AI’s role in war. Trouble is – I didn’t really understand it. Written by two highly qualified military experts, – it was couched in military jargon that was mostly impenetrable to me.
Good on them for knowing their stuff. But their underlying assumption seems to me that the world will continue to have whopping great wars, between the great powers, with the conflict being dominated by Artificial Intelligence methods – not only in physical, but also in psychological, warfare.
But, to be fair to these military experts, they do warn about the pitfalls of AI in warfare, and they do repeatedly remind us that the “primrose path” of AI warfare is being laid down, not by political leaders, not by military experts, but by the tech squillionaires:
“The current debate on military AI is largely driven by “tech bros” and other entrepreneurs who stand to profit immensely from militaries’ uptake of AI-enabled capabilities.”…….. “framing the future direction of war, despite their lack of military experience.”
We really are in a strange world – where we can let these ignoramuses (?ignorami) run things. You bristle at the term “ignoramus”? But the tech bros are ignorant – it seems, of all sorts of areas that really matter – ecology, biology, social history, diplomacy, ethics ….. They live in this wonderful STEM world, which is supposed to be the only part of knowledge that matters. Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics – yes those studies do matter – but they are not the only ones that matter.
I am grateful to these authors, Paul Lushenko and Keith Carter for tackling this timely subject.
They’ve done a great job, and I hope that military planners will pay attention to their work.
But even more, I hope that influential leaders of other kinds will also take up this question of should we let the tech squillionaires run things , especially war, for us?
Financing new nuclear. Governments paying the price?
WISE Netherlands commissioned this research to provide a clear picture of
the current-day construction costs of a nuclear power plant.
WISE Netherlands is specifically interested in the government’s share of
financing the construction of nuclear power plants, a price to be paid by
the taxpayer.
The research request follows up on the Dutch government’s
intention to build two (or even four) new nuclear power plant units in the
Netherlands.
The current nuclear site at Borssele has been designated as
the preferred location for the first two units (Borssele 2-3). Nuclear
power plant construction is not business as usual in a privatised energy
market. Governments regularly intervene heavily, either through direct
financing, providing loans and guarantees, or via risk-sharing and
interference with price measures.
This raises the question of how much a government will have to pay when planning a new nuclear power plant. Based on recent examples, what is the range of cost estimates that can be expected?
To this end, this study aims to provide a detailed analysis of
the actual costs and timelines of typical and recent large-scale
construction projects of new nuclear power plants. Six nuclear power plants
have been selected for this research. They are among the latest to be put
into operation globally: Olkiluoto 3 (Finland), Shin Hanul 1-2 (South
Korea), Barakah 1-4 (United Arab Emirates), Vogtle 3-4 (United States),
Flamanville 3 (France) and Hinkley Point C 1-2 (United Kingdom).
WISE Netherlands (accessed) 10th Oct 2024
Australia’s evolving nuclear posture: avoiding a fait accompli (Part 1 of 2)
Pearls and Irritations, By Vince Scappatura, Oct 12, 2024
A monumental transformation: There has been a great deal of public criticism of Australia’s decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) via the AUKUS security partnership. The criticism has been both broad and deep, spanning political and industrial challenges, budgetary consequences, safety and environmental concerns, strategic risks, and the erosion of national sovereignty.
While these are all worthy issues to bring to the fore of the public debate, one set of issues that have not received nearly as much attention are the ways in which AUKUS implicates Australia in US nuclear war planning.
From one perspective this is understandable given AUKUS does not involve plans for Australia to acquire nuclear-armed submarines or to station US nuclear weapons on Australian soil. However, when viewed from a wider perspective, AUKUS epitomises Australia’s geostrategic transformation and evolving nuclear posture within the US alliance.
The significance of this transformation is reflected in the fact that Australia will soon become ‘the only ally in the world to host and support military operations by forward-deployed US strategic bombers and SSN attack submarines’. This comes in addition to hosting mature US expeditionary Marine capabilities and a more recent rotational presence of US Army personnel and permanent associated support infrastructure.
Perhaps more significant than providing a ‘vast military launchpad’ for multiple forms of US power projection is the developing role of the ADF to seamlessly integrate with American military forces and to provide what is approaching full-spectrum support operations, including for nuclear missions.
AUKUS and nuclear war
Although the focus of AUKUS ‘pillar one’ is the acquisition by Australia of nuclear-powered, but conventionally-armed submarines, there are in fact several nuclear war planning dimensions to the broader security partnership.
The Australian government refuses to publicly broach the questions of how, where and against whom Australia’s future SSN force might be expected to operate both in peacetime and in the event of conflict. …………………………………………….
It would not be surprising if all of these contingencies are perceived by Beijing as posing an existential threat, particularly as China’s nuclear submarine deterrent continues to develop into an assured second-strike capability…………………………………………………………………
Australia’s evolving nuclear posture
AUKUS is more than just an international arms agreement. By Scott Morrison’s admission the political framework is intended to secure a ‘forever partnership’ and a ‘forever responsibility’ between Australia and the United States. The unprecedented scale, cost, time frame and interdependence generated by the singular AUKUS deal clearly signals a decision to lock Australia into America’s distinctive military strategy for containing China into the future.
A key objective of America’s strategy is to achieve seamless high-end defence integration with its global network of allies and partners. While obstacles to full realisation remain, Canberra’s embrace of ‘integrated deterrence’ is already transforming Australia into both a critical base of operations and provider of full-spectrum support for US force projection into the region. It is also leading to the development of a new and unprecedented role for the ADF in support of US nuclear operations.
………………………………………………………………………………………. Avoiding a fait accompli
The situation emerging is one of enduring high-level tactical and institutional integration between the defence forces of Australia and the United States, creating the conditions for extreme political pressure and expectations from Washington of Australian support for any future US war with China……………………………………………………………..
The time to put a halt to any plans for expanding Australia’s nuclear posture is now. If no public pressure is forthcoming the Australian government is likely, in time, to move forward with precommitments to support US nuclear operations behind closed doors, and if presented to the public at all, will be done so as a fait accompli, as was the case with AUKUS, the forward-deployment of B-52 bombers and the US Force Posture Initiatives generally. https://johnmenadue.com/australias-evolving-nuclear-posture-avoiding-a-fait-accompli-part-1-of-2/
Electrical Trades Union questions Australia’s billion-dollar nuclear price tag
09 October, 2024, BY Aaliyah Rogan, https://mining.com.au/etu-questions-australias-billion-dollar-nuclear-price-tag/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF1SuRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZuZOLhjX1n0h3g6EQL1ux1wMtrzMt09-VLVDSaM8enMFX4RZ8Fu8yOx0w_aem_1ulz0sgMMWof53yKtuqOUQ
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is pushing back against the Coalition’s proposal to build nuclear reactors in a new advertising campaign that queries the project’s price tag, and flags concerns it will destroy valuable job opportunities.
In mid-June 2024, Opposition leader Peter Dutton revealed the opposition’s plans to build several nuclear power plants that will begin rolling out in 2035 if the party wins the upcoming election.
Dutton’s plan involves reactors being built on the sites of end-of-life coal-fired power stations at locations including Gippsland in Victoria, Gladstone in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia, Collie in Western Australia, and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales.
Following Dutton’s proposal, the Smart Energy Council conducted a detailedanalysisusing CSIRO’s latest GenCost report and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan, which revealed the nuclear reactors will cost between $116 billion and $600 billion.
ETU National Secretary Michael Wright says the ad was prompted by electrical workers’ concerns that an abrupt shift towards nuclear energy will “rob the industry of a jobs and skills boom”.
“Renewables and batteries in Australia are producing so much low-cost energy we are on track to hit climate targets,” Wright says.
“This will create nearly 100,000 more jobs for electricians by 2050 — so many that we need to rewire our training system to skill up enough people.
“We are very concerned that a rapid change in direction to high-cost nuclear with decades-long timelines would derail this momentum and rob the next generation of electrical workers of renewable transition opportunities.”
Wright adds that people have the right to ask questions about Dutton’s nuclear plans, about the costs, the length of time, and why Australia needs nuclear energy when batteries and low-cost renewables are gathering momentum in a short period of time.
“People should get to form their views with the same information that electrical workers, energy investors, and businesses in the industry have access to,” he says.
“These insiders have reached a consensus view that nuclear is not right for Australia.
“People are questioning the financial cost of nuclear for relatively little output that won’t come online until the middle of the century. We think most people would prefer to see renewables and batteries bring down power bills and hit climate targets much sooner than that.”
ETU’s video advertisement will be launching initially for catch-up viewers across key areas of Queensland exposed to plans for nuclear energy, before being launched in other areas ahead of the 2025 federal election.
The ad will air on 7plus, 9Now, 10Play, SBS ON Demand, FoxtelGo, Kayo, Tubi, and Binge, as well as Youtube and Meta properties.
The Electrical Trades Union is an Australian trade union that is a division of the Communications, Electrical, and Plumbing Union. It is considered the largest of the three divisions.
Unprecedented peril: disaster lies ahead as we track towards 2.7°C of warming this century
October 9, 2024 , Thomas Newsome, Associate Professor in Global Ecology, University of Sydney, William Ripple, Distinguished Professor and Director, Trophic Cascades Program, Oregon State University https://theconversation.com/unprecedented-peril-disaster-lies-ahead-as-we-track-towards-2-7-c-of-warming-this-century-240549
You don’t have to look far to see what climate change is doing to the planet. The word “unprecedented” is everywhere this year.
We are seeing unprecedented rapidly intensifying tropical storms such as Hurricane Helene in the eastern United States and Super Typhoon Yagi in Vietnam. Unprecedented fires in Canada have destroyed towns. Unprecedented drought in Brazil has dried out enormous rivers and left swathes of empty river beds. At least 1,300 pilgrims died during this year’s Hajj in Mecca as temperatures passed 50°C.
Unfortunately, we are headed for far worse. The new 2024 State of the Climate report, produced by our team of international scientists, is yet another stark warning about the intensifying climate crisis. Even if governments meet their emissions goals, the world may hit 2.7°C of warming – nearly double the Paris Agreement goal of holding climate change to 1.5°C. Each year, we track 35 of the Earth’s vital signs, from sea ice extent to forests. This year, 25 are now at record levels, all trending in the wrong directions.
Humans are not used to these conditions. Human civilisation emerged over the last 10,000 years under benign conditions – not too hot, not too cold. But this liveable climate is now at risk. In your grandchild’s lifetime, climatic conditions will be more threatening than anything our prehistoric relatives would have faced.
Our report shows a continued rise in fossil fuel emissions, which remain at an all-time high. Despite years of warnings from scientists, fossil fuel consumption has actually increased, pushing the planet toward dangerous levels of warming. While wind and solar have grown rapidly, fossil fuel use is 14 times greater.
This year is also tracking for the hottest year on record, with global daily mean temperatures at record levels for nearly half of 2023 and much of 2024.
Next month, world leaders and diplomats will gather in Azerbaijan for the annual United Nations climate talks, COP 29. Leaders will have to redouble their efforts. Without much stronger policies, climate change will keep worsening, bringing with it more frequent and more extreme weather.
Bad news after bad news
We have still not solved the central problem: the routine burning of fossil fuels. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – particularly methane and carbon dioxide – are still rising. Last September, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere hit 418 parts per million (ppm). This September, they crossed 422 ppm. Methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, has been increasing at an alarming rate despite global pledges to tackle it.
Compounding the problem is the recent decline in atmospheric aerosols from efforts to cut pollution. These small particles suspended in the air come from both natural and human processes, and have helped cool the planet. Without this cooling effect, the pace of global warming may accelerate. We don’t know for sure because aerosol properties are not yet measured well enough.
Other environmental issues are now feeding into climate change. Deforestation in critical areas such as the Amazon is reducing the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon naturally, driving additional warming. This creates a feedback loop, where warming causes trees to die which in turn amplifies global temperatures.
Loss of sea ice is another. As sea ice melts or fails to form, dark seawater is exposed. Ice reflects sunlight but seawater absorbs it. Scaled up, this changes the Earth’s albedo (how reflective the surface is) and accelerates warming further.
In coming decades, sea level rise will pose a growing threat to coastal communities, putting millions of people at risk of displacement.
Accelerate the solutions
Our report stresses the need for an immediate and comprehensive end to the routine use of fossil fuels.
It calls for a global carbon price, set high enough to drive down emissions, particularly from high-emitting wealthy countries.
Introducing effective policies to slash methane emissions is crucial, given methane’s high potency but short atmospheric lifetime. Rapidly cutting methane could slow the rate of warming in the short term.
Natural climate solutions such as reforestation and soil restoration should be rolled out to increase how much carbon is stored in wood and soil. These efforts must be accompanied by protective measures in wildfire and drought prone areas. There’s no point planting forests if they will burn.
Governments should introduce stricter land-use policies to slow down rates of land clearing and increase investment in forest management to cut the risk of large, devastating fires and encourage sustainable land use.
We cannot overlook climate justice. Less wealthy nations contribute least to global emissions but are often the worst affected by climate disasters.
Wealthier nations must provide financial and technical support to help these countries adapt to climate change while cutting emissions. This could include investing in renewable energy, improving infrastructure and funding disaster preparedness programs.
Internationally, our report urges stronger commitments from world leaders. Current global policies are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Without drastic changes, the world is on track for approximately 2.7°C of warming this century. To avoid catastrophic tipping points, nations must strengthen their climate pledges, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.
Immediate, transformative policy changes are now necessary if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Climate change is already here. But it could get much, much worse. By slashing emissions, boosting natural climate solutions and working towards climate justice, the global community can still fend off the worst version of our future.
Labor announces surprise parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, raising hopes of an ‘adult conversation’
ABC, By chief digital political correspondent Jacob Greber, 10 Oct 24
In short:
Labor has launched a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, which it hopes will expose shortcomings in the opposition’s plans.
But the Coalition says it is ready to “come to the party” and profile arguments in favour of nuclear.
What’s next?
Labor, the Coalition and crossbench will nominate members of the committee, due to report back no later than April 30.
An energy expert has welcomed Labor’s decision to establish a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, saying open consideration of the technology is better than the federal government’s current position of seeking to “pooh-pooh the whole thing”.
Labor surprised the Coalition by announcing on Thursday that it will report no later than April 30 on the deployment of nuclear power, including small modular reactors.
Tony Wood, an energy specialist at the Grattan Institute, said “anything that begins to open up an adult conversation about nuclear power is a good thing”.
“In some ways, it’s better than what the government was doing, which is pooh-pooh the whole thing.”
The government-dominated House of Representatives committee will look at deployment time frames, uranium transport, supply, storage and enrichment capability, water impacts, and costs and consequences for electricity affordability.
Labor hopes the inquiry — which the ABC understands was initiated by backbenchers led by Hunter Valley MP Dan Repacholi — will fill the information void left by the Coalition’s repeated delays in releasing its planned nuclear policy or economic modelling.
Voters have ‘many questions’, Labor MP says
Mr Repacholi said voters in his electorate and around the nation have “many questions” about the opposition’s plan to build several nuclear power stations.
“Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show they want more details,” he said.
“Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there…………………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-10/labor-announces-nuclear-power-inquiry/104456124
Coalition claims of a nuclear power renaissance in UK further expose its shameless policy con
Tim Buckley & John Hewson, Oct 10, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-claims-of-a-nuclear-power-renaissance-in-uk-further-expose-its-shameless-policy-con/
In the one-page nuclear policy pamphlet the LNP released in June, federal opposition leader Peter Dutton states that “of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards using it.”
Even this claim lacks credibility and relies on half-truths – so no wonder Dutton and his nuclear-spuiking sidekick Ted O’Brien are failing to get buy-in on their delusion from those in their own party, let alone most experts.
The UK – the 6th largest economy in the world by GDP in 2023, and one which has an established nuclear power industry – is a case in point for both the problems with technology and its decline in some major economies.
Since 2000, nuclear power generation in the UK has more than halved from 85 terawatt hours (TWh) to a multidecade low of 41 TWh in 2023.
In the same period nuclear’s share of total UK electricity generation has dropped from 23% to a record low of 14%. Energy analyst company Aurora Energy forecasts UK nuclear generation could fall to a three-decade low of just 8 TWh by 2029.
This ongoing, inexorable decline has occurred even as coal’s share of electricity supply has plummeted from 32% in 2000 to just 1% in 2023.
Meanwhile, wind power doubled to 82 TWh from 2016 to 2023, and is exactly twice the amount of energy produced by nuclear. UK solar has grown sixfold in the last decade to 14 TWh, and is likely to double nuclear’s contribution by 2029.
While O’Brien has claimed there is nuclear renaissance in the UK, the reality is the UK’s end-of-life nuclear fleet is rapidly approaching its use-by date.
France’s EDF owns the only five remaining nuclear power plants (with a total of 9 units) still operating in the UK, all due to be shuttered by 2028: Sizewell B (to retire in 2025); Hartlepool 1&2 (retirement in March 2026); Heysham I 1&2 (March 2026); Heysham 2 1&2 (2028); and Torness 1&2 (2028).
EDF has flagged it would consider extending the life of some of these plants, but no decision has been made.
EDF has now reported a €12.9 billion writedown on its under-construction Hinkley Point C nuclear plant – an eye-watering mega-project debacle comparable to the LNP’s Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri gas plants in Australia – and pivoted into developing wind, solar and hydro-electricity plants.
With a 2029-2031 commissioning date, Hinkley is running around 15 years late from its original targeted completion date of 2017.
It has a rapidly rising estimated construction cost of £41.6-47.9 billion, or A$80-93 billion, making the CSIRO GenCost estimates of nuclear in Australia look conservative. EDF’s Hinkley Point C equity partner, China’s CGN, stopped supporting the cost overruns in 2023.
The UK consumer can now look forward to being gouged when this white-elephant is actually commissioned next decade. The UK government-underwritten power purchase agreement (PPA) was set at £92.5/MWh (in 2012 prices), escalating with inflation through to commissioning and thereafter over the 35 year plant life.
In 2022 the price of power from Hinkley ballooned to £116/MWh, twice the cost of energy supplied by new wind farms at £54-59/MWh.
The proposal for a Sizewell C nuclear plant is long delayed and is still to gain financial backing, despite €5.5bn of proposed new UK government subsidies on top of the existing €2.5bn taxpayer support.
On top of these issues are massive nuclear decommissioning costs worn by taxpayers. The UK government estimated in 2022 it will cost UK taxpayers £132bn to decommission civil nuclear sites, with the work taking 120 years.
These cost estimates have doubled in the past decade, and could easily double again by the time they are imposed on the people. Add to this the fact the UK has no facility for permanently and safely storing the waste from past, present or future nuclear power stations.
Far from depending on nuclear, UK electricity consumers rely on its world leading wind industry and international grid connectivity to keep power prices down and to keep their lights on.
Dutton and O’Brien tout Rolls Royce as a preferred supplier of still mythical small modular reactors (SMR). What the LNP doesn’t mention is that Rolls Royce doesn’t actually build SMRs for electricity markets, nor does it even have a single approval or final investment decision, despite milking significant government funding over many years.
A flurry of press releases and yet more UK government subsidies doesn’t alter the fact that there isn’t even an SMR factory under construction or approved.
The LNP’s claim that Rolls Royce will have an SMR operational by 2030 anywhere is also far-fetched, and arguably a physical impossibility. Since it is now reported that Rolls Royce’s SMR subsidiary is running out of cash, and Rolls Royce considering divesting, SMRs are looking more and more like vapourware.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against nuclear on cost, timeframe and technical grounds, the LNP, Australia’s party of small government and free markets proposes to nationalise onto taxpayers the cost of building 7 nuclear reactors – which we estimate at over $100bn – as well as decades of massive construction risks and delays, and higher power bills in the short, medium and longer term.
A cursory look at the international experience is enough to expose the LNP’s shameless con, designed only to disrupt and delay our accelerating transition to abundant, reliable, low-cost firmed renewables.
Tim Buckley is director of independent think tank Climate Energy Finance. John Hewson, is former leader of the LNP and Honorary Professorial Fellow at ANU.
TODAY: Vitriolic hatred of Arabs and Russians versus THINKING and practical military strategy.
This little post is based on the video above, and the long transcript at “Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: Middle East Exploding, Ukraine Crumbling! the US Take Action?.“
These voices of sanity won’t be heard on the mainstream media – which prefers to obsess over “border incursions and the ingestion of cats and dogs and other minor matters because the big ones aren’t a problem“
While discussing the history of the present crises, Wolff and Hudson show us the danger that we are in: – “the mentality we’re dealing with:
the State Department and the National Security Agency and the Democratic Party leadership, with its basis in the military-industrial complex, is absolutely committed to “if we can’t have our way, then who wants to live in such a world.” …………. what Putin said was, “well, who wants to live in a world without Russia after all?”
The public is being mesmerised into the idea that people of different religions, different languages and ethnicities, cannot get along together. Thus a one-state solution for Israel is seen as impossible, and an autonomous region in the Donbass of Ukraine, or at this stage Donbass as part of Russia, is seen as impossible.
How is this mesmerisation achieved?
The authors outline the background – the individuals within American officialdom, who have, over time, fostered the hatreds that foment conflict.- . “Everything that’s happened today was planned out just 50 years ago back in 1973 and 1974” …… ” Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson”… “Herman Kahn, the model for Dr. Strange Love” and “the Hudson Institute” ……Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Douglas Fife”…
They go on to explain how the USA’s goal of domination can no longer be pursued by U.S. army invasions and occupations of foreign countries. “today’s tactics are limited to bombing, not occupying, countries” Now it depends on foreign troops to do the fighting – and that needs zealous fanaticism among those foreign countries – to supply the troops :
“that’s willing to fight to the last member of its country — the last Afghan, the last Israeli, the last Ukrainian — you really need a country whose spirit is one of hatred towards the other”
“The whole idea of the Ukrainians and Israelis is to bomb civilians, not military targets, but civilians. It’s a fight literally to destroy the population under an ideology of genocide. And that is absolutely central. It’s not an accident – it’s built in, built into the program. And Lebanon, even though it’s largely Christian, is part of that.“
“The foreign policy has backed Israel and Ukraine, providing them with arms, bribing their leaders with enormous sums of money, and electronic satellite guidance for everything they’re doing.’
Here’s where Zionism comes in, as distinct from the secular Jews, the successful middle-class assimilationists who are for peace. The Zionists have “that visceral hatred of Islam” . Also there is “the visceral hatred of Russia, specifically for anti-Semitism of past centuries,“
In Ukraine, and in some parts of Europe, there is also that visceral hatred of Russia, with memories of the Stalinist genocidal regime.
But guess what? – religious fervour and hatred is not limited to Jewish Zionists, Islamic theocracies, Ukrainian zealots, – now we have Christian Evangelicals joining in. Now there is:
“a marriage of convenience here between the Zionists …and…it’s in the evangelical community…..The biggest festivals every year of Israeli films are held in mega-churches of the Protestant faith in this country, not in synagogues. “
The only way that these suicidal wars can continue, is if the governments – of Ukraine, of Israel, and especially of the USA, can maintain the public mood of anger and hatred of Russians, of Hamas, of Hezbollah, of China, …. of whoever .
To maintain that mood requires a compliant media.
No problem there: – conflict, hatred – all that brings in far more attention and money, than wimpy, calm, discussion and diplomacy. can ever do. (An interesting example here is the current legal battle in the Murdoch family – a calmer, more reasonable Murdoch media would be less profitable – a prospect that appalls old Rupert Murdoch)
And the corporate media is embedded on the nuclear-military-corporate -industrial -political complex, – so the media owners like things the way they are.
Here is the irony: “the opponents of all this are the U.S. military“…..….” there is an opposition right now between the army – we’ll call them the realists – who say that if you really want to extend the war, it’s not going to work”
What is to be done? Michael Hudson poses the question: ‘
“Who are the Americans, who, with their donors backing them, who are going to say, “yes, we prefer saving civilization to making money this week and next week for living in the short term. The American point of view is short term; the rest of the world is taking a longer term position – who’s going to win?“
Australian nuclear news headlines Oct 7 – 14.
Headlines as they come in :
- Queensland premier will hold plebiscite on nuclear power if he wins state election
- Albanese and Dutton team up on toxic AUKUS nuclear waste deal
- Two Peter Dutton policies may swing Teals to Labor in a minority government
- Australia’s evolving nuclear posture: avoiding a fait accompli (Part 1 of 2).
- John Hewson –The opposition leader’s nuclear bullshit
- Electrical Trades Union questions Australia’s billion-dollar nuclear price tag
- Labor announces surprise parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power, raising hopes of an ‘adult conversation’
- Coalition claims of a nuclear power renaissance in UK further expose its shameless policy con
- US’ next-gen nuclear submarines suffer delay with costs soaring past $130 billion.
- Labor springs surprise nuclear power committee to call Coalition bluff on energy policy.
Labor springs surprise nuclear power committee to call Coalition bluff on energy policy.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/labor-springs-surprise-nuclear-power-committee-to-call-coalition-bluff-on-energy-policy/ 10 Oct 24
The Labor government has sprung a surprise on the last sitting of the winter parliament by establishing a parliamentary select committee to inquire into the viability of nuclear power.
The committee is not designed to support any shift in Labor government policy, but more to call out the Coalition bluff, and fill in the the lack of details, and costings, of its own nuclear power plans.
The committee has been proposed and will be chaired by Labor’s Dan Repacholi, the MP for the Hunter region which is host to one of seven sites identified by Opposition leader Peter Dutton and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien for their nuclear power plants.
The committee is expected to report by April 30, but given that the next federal election is now almost certain to be held in May next year, it can also issue an interim report.
Its term of reference are focused on the unknown and contested parts of the Coalition’s nuclear policy, including the costs and timeframes of both large scale and small modular reactors, its potential share of the country’s energy mix, water and waste issues, enrichment capabilities, and state and federal regulations.
The committee will have a majority four members appointed by the government, two from the opposition and one cross-bencher. O’Brien sought to make it three government and 3 opposition, but the motion failed.
The decision to create the committee comes just weeks after Dutton failed to outline details of his nuclear power plans at a CEDA event where he was expected to do just that. His claims that nuclear will deliver cheaper prices to consumers, and that the first reactor can deliver power by 2035, have been rejected by virtually everyone in the energy industry.
Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen told parliament on Thursday that nuclear is clearly the most expensive form of energy.
Bowen said O’Brien had refused an invitation to debate the issue on ABC’s Q&A program. I said yes, he said no,” Bowen said.
“Report after report shows that the Oppositions plan will push prices up. Professor Rod Sims said maybe $200 a year. Dr Dylan McConnell said $400 or $500 a year. Dr Roger Dargerville said $1,000 a year. And of course, we’ve also seen the report from IEEFA which said $665 a year on average.”
Repacholi told the house earlier on Thursday that he had been “out and about in the Hunter electorate” listening to people about the opposition’s proposed nuclear scheme.
“One thing that has been absolutely clear is that people have many questions. Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show that they want more detail. Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there.”
In a shock move early this morning, leader of the House Tony Burke moved a motion to establish the inquiry which would report back by April 30, 2025, but it can issue an interim report.
US’ next-gen nuclear submarines suffer delay with costs soaring past $130 billion.
The US Navy’s next-generation nuclear submarines face delays and rising costs, surpassing $130 billion.
Interesting Engineering, Bojan Stojkovski Oct 05, 2024
A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan watchdog that reviews government operations for Congress, highlighted problems with the construction of the new submarines.
The GAO noted that both cost and schedule targets for the lead submarine have consistently been missed, according to the report released on Monday, Gizmodo reported.
“Our independent analysis calculated likely cost overruns that are more than six times higher than Electric Boat’s estimates and almost five times more than the Navy’s. As a result, the government could be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs for the lead submarine,” the GAO said in its report.Re-Timer and cold plasma, the best of IE this week
Navy plans to replace aging Ohio-class subs
The country’s nuclear weapons are deployed through three methods: intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from silos, bombs dropped from strategic bombers, and missiles fired from stealth submarines. …………………………………………………………………..
General Dynamics Electric Boat is currently building the first Columbia-class submarine, but the construction is facing significant challenges. According to the GAO report, the program has struggled with ongoing issues such as delays in materials and design products, despite efforts over the years to address these problems. The report also stated that swift and substantial action is needed to improve the construction performance.
Submarine construction faces skilled labor shortages
Some of the challenges are systemic, as there are few skilled workers in the US capable of building nuclear submarines. Between the 1980s and 2020, the submarine supplier base, which provides critical parts and materials, has drastically reduced from around 17,000 suppliers to just 3,500.
This has led Columbia-class shipbuilders to increasingly depend on single-source suppliers, limiting competition for contracts, according to the GAO.
As Defense One writes, the Navy and shipbuilders provide “supplier development funding” to support these critical suppliers. This funding is divided into two categories: “direct investments in suppliers,” which cover expenses like equipment, factory upgrades, and workforce development, and “specialized purchases to signal demand,” which involve placing orders to ensure that suppliers remain capable and motivated to produce, even when their products are not immediately required.
However, the GAO found that the Navy has not adequately assessed whether its financial investments in the supplier base are being utilized effectively. The GAO report outlined that the Navy has inconsistently defined the necessary information to evaluate whether these investments have led to increased production or cost savings and how these outcomes align with the program’s objectives https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-nuclear-submarines-delayed-exceeding-costs
Nuclear news and more -week to 7 October
Some bits of good news –
Humanitarian action for children – the work of UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) in 2024 UNICEF a great example of a caring agency that never gives up.
Tripling renewable energy worldwide by 2030 is within reach. Rooftop solar is trending in Australia.
Barcelona is turning subway trains into power stations.
California bans all plastic bags at grocery stores.
TOP STORIESMedia Urge Expansion of Ukraine War—Nuclear Risk Be Damned.
Israel Planning Major Attack on Iran. Biden says he would not back Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Pentagon “goes to school” -William Hartung, The Battle for the Soul of American Science.
Russia revisits nuclear doctrine to allow attacks on non-nuclear states in response to Western weapons in Ukraine- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?s=Russia+revisits
Finally Free, Assange Receives a Measure of Justice From the Council of Europe.
Unrealisable Justice : Julian Assange in Strasbourg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai34Uxnv_4s
Climate. Huge Arctic wildfires release 100m tonnes of greenhouse gas in a year. EDF summer heat cuts double but below 9-year median.
Noel’s notes. In praise of Joe Biden – an unfashionable opinion.
************************************
AUSTRALIA. What nuclear power in the United States tells us about the Coalition’s controversial energy policy
Hey Australia, Ontario is no model for energy and climate policy.
Big Super is still investing in nuclear weapons: report More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/09/30/australian-nuclear-news-oct-1-7/
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| ATROCITIES. Urgent Action by S. Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Palestine. |
| CLIMATE. Sorry, AI won’t “fix” climate change – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/03/1-a-sorry-ai-wont-fix-climate-change/ Hurricane Helene Floods Closed Duke Nuclear Plant in Florida. Hurricane Helene sends a warning. Jane Fonda: Nuclear power at Three Mile Island is no climate solution. Greenpeace warns of flooding risks at France’s biggest nuclear plant. |
| CIVIL LIBERTIES. ‘Pursuit of truth will live on’: Assange speaks to the world. |
ECONOMICS. Sizewell C nuclear project hit by fresh delays as investment talks drag on ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/05/1-b1-sizewell-c-nuclear-project-hit-by-fresh-delays-as-investment-talks-drag-on/
Czechs take stake in Rolls-Royce vehicle in boost for SMRs ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/07/1-b1-czechs-take-stake-in-rolls-royce-vehicle-in-boost-for-smrs/
NUCLEAR power is a fiscal sinkhole ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/10/07/1-b1-nuclear-power-is-a-fiscal-sinkhole/
| ENERGY. Ukrainian energy minister censured over nuclear plan, response to power grid attacks. South Australia sets spectacular new records for wind, solar and negative demand. |
| ENVIRONMENT. ‘Environmental impact’ of Hinkley Point C debate due.Oceans: IAEA to have marine sampling near Fukushima plant with China, others, |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. Israel’s Ideology of Genocide Must be Confronted and Stopped. Royal Navy chief apologises for ‘intolerable’ misogyny in Submarine Service. |
| EVENT. 10 October – Space Demilitarization – Live Q&A. Beyond the Battlefield: Demilitarizing Space for Global Peace A Live Q&A on Space Militarization and Demilitarization REGISTER. |
| HEALTH. Radon, even at levels below EPA guideline for mitigation, is linked to childhood leukemia. |
| HUMAN RIGHTS. Assange: ‘I’m Free Because I Pled Guilty to Journalism’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vCm6ybW2WA |
| LEGAL.Trial in New Hampshire of protesters against Elbit Systems – supplier of weapons for Israel..DOE Plutonium Pit Plan Found To Violate Environmental Law.Nuclear Waste Storage Site in Texas Draws Supreme Court Review. US Supreme Court to hear nuclear waste storage dispute. Sellafield ordered to pay nearly £400,000 over cybersecurity failings. |
| MEDIA. ‘Western Press Obscured the Sheer Terror of What Israel Had Carried Out’: CounterSpin interview with Mohamad Bazzi on Lebanon pager attacks. Meta Is Aggressively Censoring Criticism Of US-Israeli Warmongering. ‘Petrobromance,’ Nuclear Priesthood, and Police Repression: Feminist Confrontations of Violent Industries, and Movements to Abolish Them. |
| POLITICS. Donald Trump encourages Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Power Vote: Many Questions, But Just One On The Ballot, |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Israel has given no assurances it won’t target Iran’s nuclear facilities, top State Department official tells CNN. “Hit Iran’s Nuclear Sites First”: Donald Trump’s Advice To Israel. France asserts itself against Netanyahu over Lebanon: Macron calls for Arms Embargo against Israel. |
SAFETY.
- DoJ Notified of Suspected Faulty Welds on Subs, Aircraft Carriers at Newport News Shipbuilding. Lawmakers to Investigate Faulty Sub, Carrier Welding at Newport News Shipbuilding.
- Construction of Ontario nuclear reactor should move forward despite incomplete design, ! regulator says.
- Nuclear power for AI: what it will take to reopen Three Mile Island safely. Corrosion exceeds estimates at Michigan nuclear plant US wants to restart, regulator says.
- UN Nuclear Watchdog Warns on Ukraine Plant After Power Failure.
- Russia intercepts drone near Kursk, no damage to nuclear plant, governor says.
- Incident: Ukraine kills nuclear plant’s pro-Russian security chief with car bomb.
- Sellafield Fined for Cybersecurity Failures at Nuclear Site.
- Suffolk radiation emergency evacuation plans updated to include potential Sizewell C incidents.
| SECRETS and LIES. Refurbished Three Mile Island Payment Structure Is Not Quite What It Seems. |
| SPINBUSTER. It is Time to Expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy Once and for All. What reports got wrong about China’s ‘sunken nuclear submarine’. At last – one corporate newsmedia admits there is no “cloud” – only dirty great steel structures. ALSO AT ……. |
| WASTES. Decommissioning. First civil nuclear site decommissioned in the UK. UK Government seeks software to track radioactive waste as nuclear site decommissioned. |
WAR and CONFLICT. Glenn Greenwald: Who is Really Dragging the US Into Israel’s Wars? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSJh4A_go6E
Nuclear Annihilation Threatened by Revival of 20th Century McCarthy Era Cold War & Red Scare.
The Israeli Government Must Be Stopped. Israel may launch symbolic attack on Iran nuclear-related facilities, says Ehud Barak. Netanyahu’s dangerous gambit to start nuclear war.
Sullivan: US Will Ensure Iran Faces ‘Severe Consequences’ for Attacking Israel.
Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Change Is More Cautious Than It May Appear. The guns of August killed 15 million…the missiles of October could kill 8 billion. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: D.C. Doesn’t Care About Ukraine War MASS DEATHS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho7IOATIf9s
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Recognition of “double madness” at the International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Governments urged to ‘stop gambling with humanity’s future’ and eliminate nuclear weapons.
Inside the State Department’s Weapons Pipeline to Israel.
‘Pursuit of truth will live on’: Assange speaks to the world
Independent Australia, By Binoy Kampmark | 7 October 2024,
Having been freed from incarceration at Belmarsh Prison, Julian Assange delivered his first public speech at a recent parliamentary hearing, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
WIKILEAKS FOUNDER Julian Assange’s last public address was made in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. There, he was a guest vulnerable to the capricious wishes of changing governments. At Belmarsh Prison in London, he was rendered silent, and his views were conveyed by visitors, legal emissaries and his family.
The hearing in Strasbourg on 1 October, organised by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (P.A.C.E.), arose from concerns raised in a report by Iceland’s Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, in which she expressed the view that Assange’s case was ‘a classic example of “shooting the messenger”’.
Ævarsdóttir said:
‘I find it appalling that Mr Assange’s prosecution was portrayed as if it was supposed to bring justice to some unnamed victims the existence of whom has never been proven, whereas perpetrators of torture or arbitrary detention enjoy absolute impunity.’
His prosecution, Ævarsdóttir went on to explain, had been designed to obscure and deflect the revelations found in WikiLeaks’ disclosures, among them abundant evidence of war crimes committed by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instances of torture and arbitrary detention in the infamous Guantánamo Bay camp facility, illegal rendition programs implicating member states of the Council of Europe and unlawful mass surveillance, among others.
A draft resolution was accordingly formulated, expressing, among other things, alarm at Assange’s treatment and disproportionate punishment ‘for engaging in activities that journalists perform on a daily basis’ which made him, effectively, a political prisoner; the importance of holding state security and intelligence services accountable; the need to ‘urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act’ to include conditional maliciousness to cause harm to the security of the U.S. or aid a foreign power and exclude its application to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.
Assange’s full testimony began with reflection and foreboding: the stripping away of his self in incarceration, the search, as yet, for words to convey that experience, and the fate of various prisoners who died through hanging, murder and medical neglect. It was good to hear that voice again. A voice of provoking interest that pitter patters, feline across a parquet, followed by the usual devastating conclusion.
While filled with gratitude for the efforts made by P.A.C.E. and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, not to mention innumerable parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers and even the Pope, none of their interventions “should have been necessary”. But they proved invaluable, as “the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame”.
The legal system facing Assange was described as encouraging an “unrealisable justice”. Choosing freedom instead of purgatorial process, he could not seek it, the plea deal with the U.S. Government effectively barring his filing of a case at the European Court of Human Rights or a freedom of information request. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A spectator, reader or listener might leave such an address deflated. But it is fitting that a man subjected to the labyrinthine, life-draining nature of several legal systems should be the one to exhort to a commitment: that all do their part to keep the light bright, “that the pursuit of truth will live on, and the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few”. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/pursuit-of-truth-will-live-on-assange-speaks-to-the-world,19049
Dutton’s nuclear remarks spark calls for clarity on Queensland LNP’s energy plan
Dave Copeman, 4 October 2024, https://www.queenslandconservation.org.au/duttons_nuclear_remarks_lnps_energy_plan?fbclid=IwY2xjawFvCu5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWQFoEI2cqiTljqKHWH3tgX_Vn0_sbMmzV_mCAb1RfmcOcv0tqp3xtDDFw_aem_A3vBJVajSTGpG64uEbkoLg
As Queenslanders await clarity on the LNP’s energy plan, Peter Dutton has today raised the prospect of convincing a future LNP government to change its mind on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear energy, it’s becoming apparent that the clear alternative currently being proposed to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan is from Peter Dutton.
Crisafulli has yet to present a detailed and transparent energy plan for Queensland, and his reluctance to outline a clear roadmap raises questions about the future of the state’s energy strategy, including the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
The Queensland Conservation Council is calling for transparency from David Crisafulli regarding the LNP’s energy plans. Queenslanders deserve clarity on how the party intends to meet the state’s energy needs and emission reduction targets.
Queensland Conservation Council Director Dave Copeman said:
Peter Dutton’s comments today make it clear that he is prepared to convince any future LNP Queensland government to reconsider its stance on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear, it’s clear that right now, Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda is the main alternative being put forward to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
The Queensland Conservation Council is calling for transparency from David Crisafulli regarding the LNP’s energy plans. Queenslanders deserve clarity on how the party intends to meet the state’s energy needs and emission reduction targets.
Queensland Conservation Council Director Dave Copeman said:
Peter Dutton’s comments today make it clear that he is prepared to convince any future LNP Queensland government to reconsider its stance on nuclear power.
While David Crisafulli has rejected nuclear, it’s clear that right now, Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda is the main alternative being put forward to the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan.
Every day that David Crisafulli doesn’t outline his energy plan, the questions around Queensland’s energy future will only grow louder. Queenslanders need to know what the LNP’s strategy is, especially with the growing focus on nuclear from the federal Coalition. We know David Crisafulli doesn’t support Pioneer Burdekin Pumped Hydro, but we don’t have clarity on what he would suggest in its place.
The best way for David Crisafulli to confirm his opposition to nuclear power is to build on the strong pipeline of renewable energy projects Queensland already has and outline a clear plan for closing coal-fired power stations with renewable energy backed by storage.
Renewable energy is already helping to drive down power bills and create jobs, and it’s vital we have energy policy certainty to support this growing sector. The longer we wait for clarity, the more uncertain the future becomes to meet our emission reduction targets and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
At last, Dutton spells out his nuclear power play – 12 more years of coal (if it lasts)
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has revealed the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan relies on many of Australia’s coal-fired power stations running for at least another 12 years – far beyond the time frame officials expect the ageing facilities to last.
The claim has set off a new round of speculation over the Coalition’s plans – the viability of which has already been widely questioned by energy analysts.
Dutton offered up limited detail in a speech on Monday. He also revealed the plan relies on ramping up Australia’s gas production.
It seems increasingly clear the Coalition’s nuclear policy would prolong Australia’s reliance on coal, at a time when the world is rapidly moving to cleaner sources of power.
The Coalition wants to build nuclear reactors on the sites of closed coal plants. It says the first reactors could come online by the mid-2030s. However, independent analysis shows the earliest they could be built is the 2040s.
Now it appears the Coalition’s plan involves relying on coal to provide electricity while nuclear reactors are being built. On Monday, Dutton suggested coal-fired electricity would be available into the 2030s and ‘40s.
But this is an overly optimistic reading of coal’s trajectory. The Australian Energy Market Operator says 90% of coal-fired power in the National Electricity Market will close by 2035.
All this suggests the Coalition plans to extend the life of existing coal plants. But this is likely to cost money. Australia’s coal-fired power stations are old and unreliable – that’s why their owners want to shut them down. To keep plants open means potentially operating them at a loss, while having to invest in repairs and upgrades.
This is why coal plant owners sought, and received, payments from state governments to delay exits when the renewables rollout began falling behind schedule.
So who would wear the cost of delaying coal’s retirement? It might be energy consumers if state governments decide to recoup the costs via electricity bills. Or it could be taxpayers, through higher taxes, reduced services or increased government borrowing. In other words, we will all have to pay, just from different parts of our personal budgets.
Labor’s energy plan also relies on continued use of coal. Dutton pointed to moves by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to extend the life of coal assets in those states. For example, the NSW Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the Eraring coal station open for an extra two years, to 2027.
However, this is a temporary measure to keep the electricity system reliable because the renewables build is behind schedule. It is not a defining feature of the plan.
Dutton claims Labor’s renewable energy transition will require a massive upgrade to transmission infrastructure. The transmission network largely involves high-voltage lines and towers, and transformers.
He claims the Coalition can circumvent this cost by building nuclear power plants on seven sites of old coal-fired power stations, and thus use existing transmission infrastructure.
Labor’s shift to renewable energy does require new transmission infrastructure, to get electricity from far-flung wind and solar farms to towns and cities. It’s also true that building nuclear power stations at the site of former coal plants would, in theory, make use of existing transmission lines, although the owners of some of these sites have firmly declined the opportunity.
But even if the Coalition’s nuclear plan became a reality, new transmission infrastructure would be needed.
Australia’s electricity demand is set to surge in coming decades as we move to electrify our homes, transport and heavy industry. This will require upgrades to transmission infrastructure, because it will have to carry more electricity. Many areas of the network are already at capacity.
So in reality, both Labor’s and the Coalition’s policies are likely to require substantial spending on transmission.
Both Labor and the Coalition acknowledge a big role for gas in their respective plans.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says gas, along with storage, is needed to help back up to the grid, when solar and wind farms are not producing electricity.
Dutton spoke of plans “to ramp up domestic gas production” in the short term, “to get power prices down and restore stability to our grid” – presumably until nuclear comes online.
But the issue isn’t a lack of gas. It’s that the gas is in the wrong places. There’s a gas shortage because southern reserves are declining and all the gas production is in the north of the continent.
An increased role for gas means getting someone to pay for new infrastructure, such as pipelines or LNG terminals. That will make for expensive gas, and expensive gas means expensive electricity.
It’s now three months since the Coalition released its nuclear strategy. Detail was thin then – and Monday’s speech shed little light.
Many unanswered questions remain – chief among them, costings of the nuclear plan, and how much of that will be born by government. CSIRO says a nuclear reactor would cost at least A$8.6 billion.
We also don’t know how the Coalition would acquire the sites, or get around nuclear bans in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
We still don’t know how the Coalition plans to keep the lights on in the coming decade, as coal exits.
And crucially, we don’t know what it will cost households and businesses. It is unlikely to be cheap.
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 