Coalition to fast-track nuclear power.
Pearls and Irritations, By Ian McAuley, Jul 27, 2024
The Coalition’s nuclear power idea is based on an obsolete model of electricity supply
Circulating in the media are three arguments against nuclear power in Australia. One is based on safety, an emotive issue, involving unresolved questions about future costs, and the dangers are probably overstated. The danger issue doesn’t need to be argued, however, because the main problems with the Coalition’s nuclear power plans have to do with cost and the long time before the first kWh would be generated.
Those impediments were confirmed in a speech earlier this month by AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman: Australia’s energy transition: What’s needed to keep the momentum going. He said:
Our ISP [Integrated System Plan] does not model nuclear power because it is not permitted by Australian law, and development of nuclear power generation is not a policy of any government. But we know from our work with the CSIRO on the GenCost report that nuclear is comparatively expensive, and has a long lead time. Even on the most optimistic outlook, nuclear power won’t be ready in time for the exit of Australia’s coal-fired power stations.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has just released an assessment of the viability of small modular nuclear reactors, which feature strongly in the Coalition’s proposals. These reactors are still at an early development stage: it will be many years before they become established. Although the study does not explicitly address costs, it does point out that early adopters are likely to face much higher costs than those who wait for SMRs s to become a mature product. As ATSE President Katherine Woodthorpe explains on ABC Breakfast, small modular reactors are unlikely to become a realistic energy source in Australia for decades, and our large coal-fired generators are closing in the next few years.
Writing in The Conversation Asma Aziz of Edith Cowan University reminds us of another cost component not covered in the Coalition’s plans: Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle. The Coalition’s idea is about replacing retiring coal-fired generators with nuclear plants, plugged into the existing transmission infrastructure. But as she points out, demand for electricity is growing rapidly, which means the cost of upgrading the transmission network should be included in the Coalition’s plans. (It is already included in the costings for renewable energy.) The other point she stresses is that all power plants, whatever their technologies, are subject to outages, planned and unplanned. A distributed set of comparatively small solar and wind plants therefore need less transmission redundancy than large centralized nuclear plants.
There is a fourth, and more basic problem with the Coalition’s nuclear proposal. It’s based on an old and inflexible “base load” model, which was determined by the technology of coal-fired generation. There has to be enough capacity in the system to cope with demand peaks, and that was achieved by keeping the boilers hot, keeping the generators spinning, and shovelling in heaps of coal as demand rose. Nuclear is a little different, in that shovels aren’t involved, but the principle is the same.
There are now more flexible and lower-cost ways to meet peaks……………………………………………………………
All the above is in the context of a debate about the comparative cost of nuclear energy and renewables. The Australian community is being distracted from that debate, because the Murdoch media and Coalition-aligned think tanks are spreading absurd misinformation and disinformation about the cost of renewable energy. ……
Even if nuclear power plants were cheaper than renewables (they’re certainly not), there is no way they could replace coal-fired stations as they come to the end of their lives. The lead time for nuclear power is just too long. As Michael West explains, there is a constellation of forces, including the Institute of Public Affairs, Putin’s mate Tucker Carlson, and the Murdoch media, pushing to keep oil and gas burning. That would have to involve new “base-load” coal-fired stations: there is no way to extend the life of our old stations for twenty or more years while nuclear power gets developed.
The other driver of the Coalition’s policy is an intention to cripple the renewable industry through creating uncertainty. That way they can confirm their claim that the government’s renewable plans are failing. It’s doubtful that any seriously cashed-up investor is convinced by the Coalition’s nuclear argument, but the belief that next year’s election could see the election of a government of Trumpian crazies is enough to make investors cautious. ………………more https://johnmenadue.com/coalition-to-fast-track-nuclear-power-north-korean-style-weekly-roundup/
Anthony Albanese slams Opposition’s nuclear ‘obsession’ as he doubles down on renewables push at NSW Labor conference
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has hit out at Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, as he doubled down on the government’s push for renewables as the path forward for Australia’s energy future during his address at the NSW Labor conference.
Sky News, Adriana Mageros, Digital Reporter, July 27, 2024
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has slammed the Opposition’s “obsession with nuclear power”, as he doubled down on the government’s renewables push at the New South Wales Labor conference.
Mr Albanese delivered his speech to hundreds of delegates on Saturday at the annual Labor event, which will run for two days at Sydney’s Town Hall.
Security was earlier heightened in the Sydney CBD as Pro-Palestine protesters gathered outside the venue ahead of the Prime Minister’s arrival.
Speaking to delegates, Mr Albanese declared Labor’s bid for cleaner and renewable energy will produce a “new generation” of manufacturing jobs, particularly across regional Australia.
However, he claimed the Liberal Party’s nuclear agenda was putting this job growth at risk.
“They brag about driving the car industry out of Australia when they were last in government, and now they want to sacrifice a new generation of manufacturing jobs,” Mr Albanese said.
“All in the name of their obsession with nuclear power.”
Mr Dutton unveiled his long-awaited nuclear energy policy in June, proposing to build seven nuclear reactors across regional Australia should the Coalition win the next election.
The proposed power plants would be built on existing sites of aging coal-fired power stations, which are heading into retirement.
“It’s been over a month since the Liberals finally announced their plan for nuclear reactors in every state on the mainland, but they can’t find a single investor to back it,” Mr Albanese said.
“They won’t tell people what the cost of building these reactors will be, and they won’t tell you how long it will take.
“They don’t have an answer about how or where they will safely store the nuclear waste.
……………………………………………………………………………………. In his speech to delegates on Saturday, the Prime Minister also announced the government will be working with traditional owners to make the uranium mine at Jabiluka in the Northern Territory part of the Kakadu National Park.
“This means there will never be mining at Jabiluka,” Mr Albanese declared.
“The Mira people have loved and cared for their land for more than 60,000 years.
“Our government will work with them to keep it safe for all time.”…………………. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/anthony-albanese-slams-oppositions-nuclear-obsession-as-he-doubles-down-on-renewables-push-at-nsw-labor-conference/news-story/2ac731547651c7f26f08aec10676b0a1
Canada rejects AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
the main concern should be that this deal further locks Australia into US exceptionalism and attempted hegemony in our region. The Albanese government has repeatedly sought to reassure that our sovereignty has been preserved, but this is very difficult to accept given the extent to which our funding underwrites the US submarine-production program. Moreover, it’s likely Australia’s learning and launch activities will further integrate this country into the operational aspects of the American war machine, such that US leaders may effectively give all the instructions in terms of deployment and other activities.
John Hewson , professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and former Liberal opposition leader.
Some news this month might have given the government pause. Canada – with the longest coastline in the world and a security situation in its Arctic and north changing significantly as the region becomes more accessible, particularly with more Russian and Chinese activity – decided not to join the AUKUS arrangement and buy nuclear submarines. Instead it is considering cooperating with Germany and Norway as partners in a submarine program and will purchase 12 conventionally powered under-ice capable submarines for about $60 billion.
Compare this with the eye-watering cost of Australia’s acquisition: $368 billion for eight Virginia-class and next-generation SSN-AUKUS nuclear submarines with a vague delivery schedule.
Of course, defenders of the AUKUS deal will argue it is more than just an arrangement to buy submarines. They will claim it instead to be a broad, trilateral security arrangement for the Indo-Pacific region that also fosters technology exchanges between the three countries, and helps to build a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine force for Australia.
Nevertheless, the deal has been widely criticised and, given its huge cost, it’s worth asking why these criticisms haven’t resonated. One of its most vocal and effective opponents has been former prime minister Paul Keating, who has labelled it “the worst deal in history” and “the worst international decision by a Labor government since the former Labor leader Billy Hughes sought to introduce conscription”. He has slammed the deal particularly for allowing defence interests to trump diplomacy.
It has also been strongly criticised within the Labor Party and union structures: by some 50 units of the party from branches and electoral conferences, and leading unions including the Electrical Trades Union, the CFMEU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. The Nobel Prize-winning, Australian-led International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has also rejected it for the risks of nuclear proliferation. China’s reaction to the deal was to warn that we are “on a path of error and danger”.“The main concern should be that this deal further locks Australia into US exceptionalism and attempted hegemony in our region … Moreover, it’s likely Australia’s learning and launch activities will further integrate this country into … the American war machine…”
There has also been a host of technical concerns, including in relation to the supply of fuel to run the subs. Keating has drawn a comparison with an alternative deal proposed by the French that emerged after the Morrison government rescinded the original agreement to replace Australia’s ageing Collins-class fleet with the so-called Attack-class sub. This proposal, he says, came with a firm delivery date in 2034 at fixed prices, but was ignored by the government. Technically these French subs would have required only 5 per cent enriched uranium, instead of 95 per cent, weapons grade, for fuel. That this feature was ignored by the government should come as no surprise, as the Coalition has provided no detail about the enriched uranium fuel – neither supply nor cost – for its announced seven nuclear power plants.
However, the main concern should be that this deal further locks Australia into US exceptionalism and attempted hegemony in our region. The Albanese government has repeatedly sought to reassure that our sovereignty has been preserved, but this is very difficult to accept given the extent to which our funding underwrites the US submarine-production program. Moreover, it’s likely Australia’s learning and launch activities will further integrate this country into the operational aspects of the American war machine, such that US leaders may effectively give all the instructions in terms of deployment and other activities.
This should be an even greater concern having heard the Republican candidates for this year’s election speak at their national convention in Wisconsin. Both Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are committed to an even tougher line against China and Australia risks being used somewhat as a pawn in their response to what they like to refer to as the “China threat”. On the contrary, as I have suggested many times, the threat is not so much from the rise of China as it is related to the decline in the global standing of the US. It’s easy to imagine how Trump and Vance could only make this worse, especially by threatening tariffs on Chinese goods.
The Trump–Vance commitment to return to tariff protections flies in the face of voluminous accumulated evidence concerning the costs and disadvantages of doing so. This will certainly not restore the rust-belt states to their former glory as these candidates are promising. China’s only “sin” has been to grow its economy to rival that of the US. The US has lost any cost advantage it may once have enjoyed in manufacturing as well as its edge in technology – most recently in the production of electric vehicles. Just ask Tesla, which now bases much of its production in China.
And the halcyon days of inflation control in the ’90s were much more the result of China flooding the world with cheap manufactured goods, than any effective application of monetary policy. The US was a major beneficiary of this, which is so easily overlooked in its current cost-of-living crisis.
Surely Australia wouldn’t want to end up being pressured to park nuclear submarines along the Chinese coast as part of a US demonstration of strength? Nor should we allow ourselves to be dragged by the US into some conflict with China over Taiwan.
The Albanese government has had considerable difficulty justifying the cost of the AUKUS deal, and so it should. Governing is about priorities and, true enough, national security is a priority. It’s also true that the government has been able to deal effectively with many domestic priorities, such as providing non-inflationary cost-of-living assistance. Defence procurement has long been somewhat ring-fenced from the normal discipline applied to other departments in the Expenditure Review Committee processes, however. It’s no defence to spend so much on submarines, when so much more could have been done in other national priority areas, including education and the care sectors. This is especially so in light of the attendant risks of a deal such as AUKUS.
With the mounting tension between the US and China, world leaders should be increasingly concerned about the threat of another drift to a Cold War situation.
The need for a circuit breaker is clear. I was pleased recently to join the signatories to an open letter drafted by two former foreign affairs ministers, Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, for détente: “a genuine balance of power between the US and China, designed to avert the horror of great power conflict and to secure a lasting peace for our people, our region, and the world.”
Given the state of the world, and its pronounced geopolitical uncertainty, it is disappointing that neither the US nor China has yet responded to the proposal, and surprising that the Albanese government hasn’t embraced it as a mechanism to advance the point that Australia, as a middle-ranking power, has and can continue to punch above its weight in the global interest.
This is especially so given the benefits that Australia as a nation has reaped from the economic rise of China.
Surely a situation can’t be allowed to develop whereby the United States and China embark on trade protection and military conflict.
At the very least, there should be the imperative of a global discourse on this. Unfortunately, attitudes are hardening in Europe and the US – perhaps to the point where the outcome will be gratuitous harm?
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on July 27, 2024 as “Canada’s smart lead on nuclear subs”.
Shoalhaven’s nuke-free vote
Shoalhaven City Councillors voted unanimously to remain a nuclear-free zone at Monday night’s ordinary meeting. A motion was tabled seeking council reaffirm its 2006 position that it would oppose any plan or attempt to establish a nuclear reactor or power plant in the region or in the Jervis Bay Territory. It comes after federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton flagged seven nuclear sites across Australia in June.
Australia / Academy Report – small nuclear reactors ‘high-risk when compared to existing energy options’
Cost and performance of nuclear technology ‘has not yet been demonstrated’
The least risky option if Australia plans to deploy small modular reactors would be to wait until after several designs have been commercialised and successfully operated in other countries, a report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering (ATSE).
The report, Small Modular Reactors – The technology and Australian context explained, says SMRs could potentially form part of Australia’s future low-carbon energy mix, using existing transmission infrastructure and contributing to baseload power, or providing dispatchable power in a high-renewables grid.
But the report notes that as an emerging technology, in 2024 the cost and operational performance of this technology “has not yet been demonstrated”.
It says SMR development globally in “a nascent state” with associated uncertainty in costs and timelines. The report also highlights the relatively small size of the Australian nuclear-capable workforce……………………………..
An Australian government that wished to pursue a prototype SMR earlier than the 2040s would need to undertake legislative reform, acquire social licence, work directly with developers, and build the requisite skilled workforce.”
ATSE president Katherine Woodthorpe said: “Overall, the associated timescales, expense, skills gap, legal and regulatory barriers, and social acceptance of nuclear power means the technology is high-risk when compared to existing energy options……………… https://www.nucnet.org/news/academy-report-highlights-least-risky-option-for-smr-deployment-7-5-2024
Jabiluka’s priceless heritage permanently protected.
“This day will go down in history.”
Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, representing the Mirarr Traditional Owners of Jabiluka, has today welcomed the decision of Northern Territory Mines Minister Mark Monaghan to refuse mining company Energy Resources of Australia’s application to extend the Jabiluka mining lease. This decision ensures that no mining will happen at Jabiluka, ending a decades-long fight by Mirarr and their supporters.
Mirarr Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula (pictured above) said:
“We have always said no to this mine, government and mining companies told us they would mine it but we stayed strong and said no. Today I feel very happy that Jabiluka will be safe forever. Protecting country is very important for my family and for me”
The Special Reservation (under the NT Mines Act) will protect Jabiluka from the threat of any mining and takes effect from August 11th when the current lease expires. The next steps for Government will be to seek inclusion in the World Heritage estate and to work with Mirarr to establish a new set of arrangements to incorporate the area into Kakadu National Park.
Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation CEO Thalia van den Boogaard said:
“This news has been a long time coming. It’s a hugely significant day for the Mirarr and for all Australians. Jabiluka will never be mined and the internationally significant natural and cultural value of the site is finally being recognised and will now be protected. The Mirarr and their supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to this mining project for over four decades. Now the job starts of caring for Jabiluka as the heritage of all Australians.
“Mirarr are very concerned that ERA has been in serious financial decline for the past 18 months. Focus now needs to be put on the rehabilitation of the nearby former Ranger uranium mine. It is up to the mining company and the Commonwealth Government to ensure that site is fully rehabilitated so it can be safely returned to the Mirarr and included in the national park.”
Mirarr Traditional Owner Corben Mudjandi welcomed the news:
“This day will go down in history as the day the Mirarr finally stopped Jabiluka. It is great day for the Mirarr people, for Kakadu, the Northern Territory and for Australia. This proves that people standing strong for Country can win. We look forward to welcoming all Australians to share our cultural heritage for decades to come.”
“I’m not interested in the fanatics:” Dutton responds to science academy’s report on nuclear SMRs
Giles Parkinson, Jul 25, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/im-not-interested-in-the-fanatics-dutton-responds-to-science-academys-report-on-nuclear-smrs/
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has dismissed a report on nuclear small modular reactors by the highly respected Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, saying the Coalition has consulted its own experts and it is not interested in the views of “fanatics.”
ATSE on Wednesday described SMRs as a “chimera”, and said they were unlikely to be able to be built in Australia before the mid to late 2040s, more than a decade before the Coalition’s timeline of 2035.
The report by ATSE is in line with other assessments by the CSIRO, the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, former chief scientist and virtually everyone in the energy industry.
But Dutton dismissed it out of hand.
“What this report shows is that the lights are going to go out, and that wind, in particular, is not reliable,” he told journalists in the Hunter Valley, not far from one of the sites identified by the Coalition to host a nuclear power plant, according to a transcript posted on his website.
Actually, the ATSE report says nothing of the sort. It doesn’t address grid reliability problems, nor does it look at SMR costs or waste issues.
It observes that the technology does not yet exist in OECD countries, will not likely be commercially available for another 20 years, and concludes that any move to go earlier – as the Coalition wants to do – would be both costly and risky.
Dutton, however, is undeterred by such expert arguments, and by fact-checkers.
“Well, we’ve done analysis and we’ve spoken to experts. Our analysis is that we can have nuclear into the system 2035 to 2037 in the first two sites, and then we continue to roll it out from there,” he said.
Asked again about the ATSE report, and its view that 2035 is simply not doable, Dutton said: “I’m not interested in the fanatics from both sides of the argument.”
He then went on to repeat the same misinformation that he trots out at every opportunity: That Australia is the only G20 country not doing nuclear (not true), that the market operator has warned of blackouts and brownouts (not true), and that it plans 28,000 kms of new transmission (not part of its central scenario, only in the export superpower scenario and by 2050).
“You can’t have – as Barnaby (Joyce) rightly pointed out today, and I thought it was a great way to put it – you can’t run a full-time economy on part-time power,” he said.
Apart, of course, from South Australia, which is already running at 70 per cent wind and solar, has a bipartisan target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2027, and is luring new industry attracted to the state by low cost and low emissions power.
See also: Peter Dutton and crew get close to planned nuclear power plant site and repeat same nonsense.
And: Forget EVs, the Coalition has a plan for nuclear fuelled hydrogen cars
Gina Rinehart’s threat to the proud independence of Australia’s Fairfax newspapers
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence.
In 1979, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued: “We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the media and then educating the public”.
The Conversation, By Andrew Jaspan, Editor, 11 Feb 12, News of Gina Rinehart’s tilt at Fairfax Media is a circuit breaker in the never-ending story of the media company’s decline. As a former editor of The Age, one of Fairfax’s prized mastheads, I have spent the day wondering where this might end. Whichever way, it looks bad for quality, independent journalism. This is a defining moment for the kind of Australia we want….
Fairfax’s papers have an awful lot of clout. The combined audience for The Age in print and online is about 1 million readers per day, and the SMH just above. For those who follow these things, that’s higher than for any Channel 7, 9, 10 or ABC news bulletins. And more importantly, the audience for the Fairfax papers, including The Australian Financial Review, is the influential and affluent “AB” market. For these people, what the Fairfax papers report, matters.
Unlike the tabloids read by the bulk of Australians. The Age, SMH and The Fin, along with The Australian, set Australia’s news agenda and are slavishly followed by the radio talk-back and TV news shows.
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence. In 2007 she placed full
page ads in The Age and SMH against then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s
proposed mining tax. That campaign ended with the removal of Rudd and
the collapse of the tax. Now instead of buying pages, she wants to buy
the papers.
Such motivation is deep in the Rinehart family genes. In a 1979
polemic called Wake up Australia, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued:
“We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the
media and then educating the public”.
And on the miners’ right to mine anywhere, he wrote: “Nothing should
be sacred from mining whether it’s your ground, my ground, the
blackfellow’s ground or anybody else’s. So the question of Aboriginal
land rights and things of this nature shouldn’t exist.”
The Murdoch press in Australia is already favourably disposed to the
miners and the Minerals Council view of the world. Fairfax provides an
alternative view. And one that Gina no doubt wants neutered, silenced
or turned around. Perhaps by Gina’s favourite columnist, Andrew Bolt?
Whether Australia retains an independent and semi-pluralist media will
become clear within the near future. In the meantime, The Conversation
will keep a close eye on this matter of national importance.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/02/07/latest-wrap-of-health-and-medical-reading-from-the-conversation/
Time for Dutton to produce the nuclear evidence
Kevin Bailey, -Yet another group – this time the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering – has, based on existing evidence, questioned the Coalition’s nuclear plans (″Experts query Dutton’s nuclear plan″, 24/7). Their view adds to those of the Australian Energy Market Operator, several business groups and the National Farmers Federation who have recently expressed similar opinions. Notwithstanding this, Dutton continues to claim, without explicitly naming those whom he describes as ″some of Australia’s cleverest minds″, that he knows best. It’s about time he produced not only the names of the people who have those minds but also the evidence on which his claims are based. And while he’s at it, perhaps he can also provide the detailed cost-benefit analysis.
Fiona Colin, – The fading safer future for our children. Yet another nail in Peter Dutton’s nuclear coffin comes from the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering. The academy’s president says ″they are not a viable part of that [decarbonisation] solution″ because they are not commercially available anywhere and therefore would not get us to where we need to be. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear: this is the critical decade if we are to have any hope of limiting warming to safe levels, i.e. 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Current policies have the planet on track to warming of around 3 degrees. The CSIRO calculated that in 2023 ″Australia emitted 465.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent″, 0.8 per cent more than in 2022. The Coalition seeks to delay action to bring down emissions. Labor’s new gas and coal will not bring down emissions. Carbon capture and storage and offsets will not bring down emissions. The opposition continues to deride and stymie the rollout of renewables. Fossil fuel interests continue to lobby and pressure governments to enable expansion. Meanwhile, consumers are denied the cheapest form of electricity in history, and a safer future for their children.
The action must be now Graeme Lechte, The article (24/7) highlights the fact that any plans for a nuclear energy program will take decades rather than years to establish. This, at a time when the world just experienced its hottest day on record. We need immediate action on lowering emissions not a plan that wouldn’t be up and running until the 2040s.Other questions also need to be asked of the proponents of nuclear. How much will the establishment of a nuclear industry cost? Exactly how long will it take to establish? What will be the percentage of energy needs supplied by the nuclear industry? Exactly where will the reactors be situated and what effect will they have on our precious water resources? Finally, and most importantly, how and where will the resultant radioactive waste be stored. Until supporters of nuclear come up with the answers to these questions support for a nuclear industry will gain no traction.
An honest discussion is needed, Jennifer Gerrand,
Peter Dutton, when recently spruiking the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan in the small town of Murchison, a Queensland electorate the Coalition has earmarked for a small modular reactor (SMR), says he wants an honest discussion about nuclear power. How can there be an honest discussion when he hasn’t provided costs of their plans for such. He doesn’t name ″the smartest minds in Australia″ who, he claims, attest to nuclear power being cheaper than renewable wind or solar energy. Strong, consistent, evidence-based disagreement to such plans by energy experts has continued from the time that policy was first announced.Nor does Dutton acknowledge, while mentioning the name Bill Gates, that Gates recently advised 7.30 journalist Sarah Ferguson that, due to present concerns about aspects of SMRs, Australia should wait several years before making decisions about their appropriateness for our continent’s needs.Jennifer Gerrand, Carlton North
‘Jewish Voice for Peace’ protesters arrested on Capitol Hill
- The demonstrators are from Jewish Voice for Peace
- Demonstrators can be seen wearing shirts saying ‘Stop Arming Israel’
- Biden and Netanyahu scheduled to meet later this week
Evan Lambert, Urja Sinha, JUL 23, 2024, https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/israel-palestine/pro-palestinian-protesters-capitol-arrests/
(NewsNation) — Approximately 200 protesters have been arrested after they gathered in the Cannon Rotunda to protest the Israeli government, according to U.S. Capitol Police.
Organizers of the demonstration say they are from Jewish Voice for Peace, an American anti-Zionist Jewish advocacy organization that is “critical of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories,” according to its website.
Video from the protest shows dozens wearing red shirts sitting in circles in the Cannon House Office Building’s rotunda. The demonstrators wore shirts reading “Stop Arming Israel” and “Not in Our Name.”
The protest comes as President Joe Biden is expected to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, a U.S. official confirmed to NewsNation. Netanyahu will also address Congress during his U.S. visit.
Capitol Police have cleared out all the demonstrators from the rotunda, writing on X that, “We told the people, who legally entered, to stop or they would be arrested. They did not stop, so we are arresting them.”
TODAY. Militarism: How NATO is co-opting women and young people – with a veneer of peace and fun.
This isn’t new. It has long been a tactic of the nuclear lobby. What makes it easier now is the enormous influence of the military lobby everywhere, and the global spread of NATO.
Today I read professor Joan Roelofs’ article on NATO and realised that the tactic of using women and young people has moved from promoting the occasional young, and preferably female enthusiast, to creating institutions that cover up militarism, and make it look benign and peaceful.
The nuclear lobby has long been using “fun” young individuals to spread its message.
“Nuclear for Australia” was headed by 17 year-old William Shackel
The nuclear industry, wherever possible, gets its agenda into schools, often with a fun exercise about rockets
I now notice that it is pretty much obligatory for any military gathering to have at least one woman there, appropriately decked out in the right warlike gear.
While every survey comes up with figures about women liking weapons and war much less than men do, there seems to be a concerted effort to make it look as if there are women in charge at the top levels of the militaristic tree. At the recent NATO Summit lineup of 32 important people, there were 4 women. And of course, the very photogenic Ursula von der Leyen is prominent – often the only woman present at a NATO gathering.
Tragically, so many civilian jobs are linked with NATO – in areas like science, medical technology, information technology, academia, the arts, and even in progressive and human rights movements. So, through these connections the NATO message is spread, obscuring the reality that NATO is a militaristic institution, controlled by the USA, designed to make ready for war – originally against China, now against Russia, too.
The USA is controlled by corporations, especially weapons makers – it matters little whether Republicans or Democrats are in government.
NATO is now perfecting its veneer – spreading its influence through multiple nations, and multiple areas of society, an setting up its own cute little front groups, as named in the picture above.
The real decisions on NATO weapons, including nuclear, and their use, will be made by the same cabal of militaristic men, while NATO looks good, with its window-dressing of women and young people.
Clean Energy Sector Rallies Against Nuclear ‘Mistruths’
by News Of The Area – Modern Media –
THE clean energy industry has accused nuclear energy proponents of threatening the nation’s fragile hold on vital economic reform with “mistruths and outright disinformation”.
“The Australian public are being confused and misled,” Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton told the industry’s annual summit in Sydney on Tuesday.
“We need to remember the vast majority want wind and solar and hydro to be central to our energy future,” he told business leaders and investors.
He accused “bad faith actors” of preying on anxious communities who feared uncertainty after an energy crisis and amid ongoing cost-of-living pressures, which could be alleviated by cheaper renewable power.
“Vested interests are stepping up to tell their story and peppering it with mistruths and outright disinformation,” Mr Thornton said.
Nuclear power was the “battering ram of bad faith actors” despite it being more expensive and two decades away at best, he said.
Australia has doubled its amount of renewable energy in the past five years and must again by 2030, as coal-fired power plants are phased out and new electrified industries grow.
Coalition energy spokesman Keith Pitt, who says nuclear is the “only option” to achieve net zero emissions and keep the lights on, is due to address the summit on Wednesday.
Dismissing the nuclear debate as a “distraction”, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Jenny McAllister said it would leave “a pretty big gap” if the coalition pressed pause on renewables now to install nuclear power in the 2040s.
Announcing the fast-tracking of a certification scheme for new exports, Senator McAllister said it would become increasingly important for businesses to be able to account for their products’ emissions intensity to retain access to major markets.
“The guarantee of origin scheme will give Australian companies a competitive advantage by providing government-backed certification of the carbon intensity of key green products,” she said.
A crucial component of the $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia program, the scheme begins with renewable hydrogen in 2025 before expanding to sustainable aviation fuel, green steel and aluminium, and biomethane and biogas.
As the climate-accounting backbone of new green industries, it is designed to allow producers, exporters and users to prove where a product was made and the emissions associated with its production and transport.
Digital certificates, backed by proof of renewable energy use, will be used to establish eligibility for tax credits under the $6.7 billion Hydrogen Production Tax Credit announced in the May budget, and trigger the development of other new industries.
As almost all of Australia’s trading partners have net-zero commitments, official proof of emissions could avoid costly tariffs or trade bans on hydrogen or ammonia production that relies on coal or gas-fired electricity rather than renewable energy.
“Guarantee of origin is a key to new market opportunities for Australian energy exporters in the race to net-zero,” Senator McAllister said.
The first Australia-India renewable energy dialogue was held alongside the Australian Clean Energy Summit, with India aiming for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Despite being big coal and gas exporters and users, the two countries say they share a net zero commitment.
Dutton comes to town to sell us nuclear power
July 25, 2024 by Darren Cutrupi, https://www.981powerfm.com.au/local-news/dutton-comes-to-town-to-sell-us-nuclear-power/
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton predicts the Muswellbrook community largely supports his push to establish a nuclear power station at Liddell.
The Federal Coalition Leader has come to that conclusion after visiting the town yesterday where he met with a few hand-picked local business operators and the local council.
Mr Dutton said locals understand the need to go nuclear.
He claims re-electing Labor at the next national poll will result in large job losses in the Upper Hunter.
Mr Dutton said Labor’s renewables-only focus will send the Upper Hunter and Australia backwards.
UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities back joint statement condemning AUKUS nuclear proliferation
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have joined environmental and peace groups around the world in endorsing a statement that will be delivered to a conference at the United Nations.
The 2024 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee will meet today to begin work to make preparations for the next conference of signing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (or NPT).
The statement will be delivered to committee delegates by Jemila Rushton, Acting Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia. The NFLAs are a member of ICAN.
Particular reference is made to the adverse impact of AUKUS, the military alliance forged between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States in opposition to China, on geopolitics in the Pacific.
Amongst its more controversial elements is the provision of nuclear-powered submarines by the other partners to Australia. We share the concern of other signatories that AUKUS violates in spirit both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Rarotonga – South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The submarines will be powered by weapons-grade nuclear fuel, supplied by the other partners and will operate from Australian bases within a nuclear free zone.
Although present plans provide for these submarines to be conventionally armed, it is not inconceivable that over time they could be rearmed with nuclear weapons. The Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament, Peter Dutton, is currently actively lobbying for Australia to establish a civil nuclear programme and such a programme is critical to support the development of nuclear weapons capacity.
The statement has also been endorsed by our colleagues Labrats, CND Cymru and Together against Sizewell C.
For more information please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
AUKUS and the pride of politicians
By Nick Deane, Jul 24, 2024 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-and-the-pride-of-politicians/
With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has become an obstacle to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.
For my own purposes, I have been keeping a record of articles I have read under the topic ‘AUKUS’. There are now some 300 such items on my spreadsheet – nearly all of them finding fault of one kind or another with this extraordinary project.
The criticisms deal with a wide variety of aspects (mainly focussed on the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines). To summarise a few, the AUKUS project:-
- Leads Australia in the direction of war;
- Has done damage to Australia’s international reputation;
- Destabilises Australia’s immediate region;
- Brings a nuclear industry with it;
- Introduces the intractable problem of nuclear waste disposal;
- Damages our relationship with our most important trading partner;
- Causes a significant loss of sovereignty;
- Is not good value for money;
- Diverts resources away from social programs;
- Will not be as effective as conventional submarines;
- Is aggressive and not defensive, and
- Will probably not come to fruition in any case.
Highly respected commentators, such as Hugh White, Paul Keating, Sam Roggeveen, Andrew Fowler, Rex Patrick and Clinton Fernandes, have all raised significant concerns. Meanwhile ‘civil society’ is also getting mobilised, with ‘anti-AUKUS’ groups springing up in all the major centres.
However, the proponents of AUKUS (and the mainstream media) appear content to ignore the valid, rational arguments being put forward against it. Indeed, industry-based conferences are going ahead as if there is nothing about to the project that needs to be questioned, and, no doubt, secret, military training programs are already well under way. Within the military-industrial establishment, the project is gathering momentum. Those in the military are excited by the prospect of controlling a new, highly lethal weapon, whilst those in the industry are attracted by the smell of the limitless funds being devoted to it.
It is disturbing to have to concede that rational argument appears to have little impact on AUKUS’s proponents. However there is an even more worrying aspect to add. That is the pride of politicians. For the longer the process continues, with all its secrecy and in the absence of meaningful debate at high levels, the harder it is for politicians to change course. Abandoning the project would already cause senior members of both major parties considerable ‘loss of face’. If it falls over (as some predict), or if opposition becomes a vote-winner at the next election, that ‘loss of face’ will be highly embarrassing. With AUKUS, the pride of politicians has thus become an obstacle to to reaching the best solution to the ‘national security’ conundrum. In the end, it could be that ego-driven reluctance to shift from entrenched positions results in the Australian people being delivered a disaster.
In an ideal, democratic society, voters and the politicians they elect appraise themselves of the ‘pros and cons’ of controversial matters and make decisions on a rational basis. If they do that in the case of AUKUS, it is surely doomed. Politicians beware!
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 