nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out

Bill Hare,  Guardian 7th Nov 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/07/donald-trump-cant-stop-global-climate-action-if-we-stick-together-its-the-us-that-will-lose-out

How damaging this presidency is to the planet depends very much on how other countries react. There’s no time to waste.


Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out

Bill Hare

How damaging this presidency is to the planet depends very much on how other countries react. There’s no time to waste

Thu 7 Nov 2024 09.34 AEDTShare209

Donald Trump’s re-election to the White House is a major setback for climate action but ultimately it’s the US that could end up losing out, as the rest of the world will move forward without it.

The US is the world’s biggest economy and its second biggest emitter. Positive US engagement on climate has been crucial to landmark leaps forward, like getting the Paris agreement over the line, and just last year committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The US missing in action in the latter half of this critical decade for climate action is nobody’s idea of a good outcome.

President-elect Trump has promised to leave the Paris agreement and reports have emerged that he could be thinking of pulling out of the underlying United Nations framework treaty on climate change. But we’ve been here before and the truth is that a second Trump presidency can’t stop climate action, just like his denial of human-induced climate change won’t spare the US from its impacts.

The energy transition is now well under way. The economics of renewable technologies are so attractive that they have become an energy juggernaut. Since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, global investment in clean energy has increased by 60%.

Nearly US$2tn a year is now invested in clean energy projects, almost double that spent on new oil, gas and coal supply. Before the pandemic, this ratio was closer to 1:1. The US added 560 gigawatts of renewable capacity in 2023. That’s about six times the size of Australia’s entire electricity capacity, added in just one year.

Domestically, Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has set wheels in motion for climate investment that will be hard, and politically unpopular, to undo. Famously, no Republicans voted for the legislation but red states have been the main beneficiaries of the money, projects and jobs it has created. House Republicans have even pushed back against their peers to protect some of the act’s clean energy tax credits.

Climate impacts are accelerating in pace and scale that is untenable to ignore. Hurricanes Helene and Milton, supercharged by climate change, are expected to cost more than US$50bn. Fires in California, heatwaves in the sunbelt states, and flooding in the US South are wreaking huge damage on Americans. Last year a poll showed a majority of them feel that climate change is already causing serious effects.

None of this stops the day Trump re-enters the White House.


Internationally, we’ve been in this position before. In 2001 George W Bush quit the 1997 Kyoto deal. Last time Trump was in power, he left the Paris agreement, albeit for a short time. I don’t want to downplay the impacts of Trump, or the Project 2025 agenda to which he has been linked, but climate action didn’t stop then and it will not stop now.

Other players, notably China, are increasingly moving into a leadership position on the issue, because of the strategic policy and economic interests it advances. The European Union is moving ahead with its green economic development agenda despite a rightward shift in the balance of power across the EU27 – with action on the climate emergency driving the economic development needed for this region of 350 million people.

The US, if Trump does enact the changes he has campaigned on, will find itself falling behind on new technologies and markets.

How damaging the second Trump presidency is to climate action depends very much on how other countries react. If many follow Trump in either rolling back – or slowing down – their action, the damage will be severe, long-lasting and difficult to overcome.

On the other hand, if countries stick together and, as they should, deepen their commitments aligning with the Paris agreement’s 1.5C limit, the damage will be significant but not severe.

In Australia we’re on the frontline of climate impacts and damages. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered enormous damage with increasingly frequent bleaching. Forests in Western Australia have experienced browning and dieback at an unprecedented scale due to extended drought and heat.

We know that the climate crisis and its impacts on our neighbours is one of our most serious security threats – although it’s not one that our government wants to particularly talk about.

The Australian government, especially given its intention to host COP31, must play a strong diplomatic role to help ensure the fallout from the second Trump presidency is limited, and that international domestic action everywhere else continues to move ahead.



This requires leadership. The government must step up and work with other like-minded countries to bring together a coalition prepared to move forward on climate. And it needs to move forward itself.

There is no time to waste on this. COP29 starts in Baku in a few days and real leadership will be needed urgently to maintain the momentum needed to get agreement on the difficult issues that need to be solved to maintain action globally.

 Bill Hare, a physicist and climate scientist, is the chief executive of Climate Analytics

November 10, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, climate change | Leave a comment

10 reasons why Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action, especially in Australia

Wesley Morgan & Ben Newell, Nov 8, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/10-reasons-why-donald-trump-cant-derail-global-climate-action/

If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.

Trump is a climate change denier who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, among other worrying pledges.

But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.

So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.

1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted

The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. Investment in clean energy has overtaken fossil fuels, and will be nearly double investment in coal, oil and gas in 2024. This is a historic mega-trend and will continue with or without American leadership.

2. Clean energy momentum is likely to continue in the US

Much of the Biden-era spending on clean energy industries went to Republican states and Congressional districts. New factories for batteries and electric vehicles will still go ahead under the Trump administration. After all, entrepreneur Elon Musk – who is expected to join the Trump administration – makes electric vehicles.

Some of Trump’s financial backers are receiving subsidies for clean energy manufacturing and 18 Republican Congress members have gone on record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.

3. The US still wants to beat China

There is bipartisan concern in Washington about the US losing a technological edge to Beijing. China currently dominates global production of electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. So internal pressure in the US to counter China’s manufacturing might will continue.

4. The federal government is not everything in the US

When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.

5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever

During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.

6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump

If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.

7. The rules-based global order will remain

When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.

As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:

a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.

8. Australian diplomacy matters

Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.

Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.

9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating

About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is powered by renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.

Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.

10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change

The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.

And the damage is happening across the globe. In October, twin hurricanes in the US – made stronger by the warming ocean – left a damage bill of more than US$100 billion. And hundreds of people died when a year’s worth of rain fell in one day in Spain last month.

On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable.

Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney and Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

November 10, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, climate change | Leave a comment

Australian Civil Society Statement for COP29 Baku, Azerbaijan

(from Scott Ludlam, on behalf of numerous, and increasing number of Australian civil groups)) 30 Oct 24

We, the undersigned Australian Civil Society organisations are united in support for the global clean energy transition and opposition to the nuclear industry playing a spoiling role in this transition.

Nuclear power is too slow, costly and inflexible to play any meaningful role in the global decarbonisation efforts. Nuclear also brings unique risks and long-lived wastes.

Given the environmental, economic and human urgency of addressing climate change and advancing the energy transition the nuclear industry must not be allowed to cause the global diplomatic community any further delay.

Australia is moving purposefully away from centralised fossil fuel combustion and toward distributed renewable energy generation and storage. In 2024, 40% of Australia’s electricity is generated from renewable energy. This capacity is proven, delivering and expanding rapidly.

We have been fortunate to learn from the world’s experience with nuclear power. We understand why its role in global energy systems and its contribution to global electricity production has been in decline for decades. Its legacy is one of underperformance, burgeoning cost, intractable health impacts and long-lived radioactive wastes.

Despite this, a coordinated campaign is currently being waged to undermine public support for this decarbonisation effort. The last thing Australia needs now is nuclear distraction and delay.

As the former Australian Chief Scientist Dr. Alan Finkel said, “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years”.

Australia, and the world, cannot afford this delay. We stand resolute in our support for real climate action through the clean energy transition and in our opposition to false nuclear promises.

November 1, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, climate change | Leave a comment

Ontario’s huge nuclear debt and other things Dutton doesn’t understand about cost of electricity

Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve. 

 Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.

ReNewEconomy, Tristan Edis, Oct 30, 2024

All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.

It seems our alternative Prime Minister Peter Dutton’s favourite topic is your electricity bill.  Given how much he talks about electricity prices, you’d think he might know a fair bit about what makes up your electricity bill, wouldn’t you?

According to Dutton and his Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, the problem is all about too much renewable energy in the mix. And their answer to the problem is nuclear power, as well as more gas.

According to Peter Dutton, “We can’t continue a situation that Labor has us on of a renewables only policy because, as we know, your power prices are just going to keep going up under this Prime Minister.”

Instead, according to Dutton, “we could be like Ontario, where they’ve got 60 or 70 per cent nuclear in the mix, and they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”

O’Brien, elaborated on this point by saying:

“We will have plenty of time in due course to talk about the costings [for their nuclear plan] once we release them here in the Australian context. But I point to Ontario in Canada, there you have up to 60 per cent of their energy mix in the grid, coming from zero emissions, nuclear energy. Their households pay around about 14 cents kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year.”

Once you actually delve into these numbers it becomes apparent that O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem know much about electricity costs and pricing.

But even worse, they don’t know how badly Ontario’s taxpayers and electricity consumers were burnt by their utility racking up huge debt building nuclear power plants equal to $70 billion in current day Australian dollars.

Do Dutton and O’Brien understand your electricity bill?

You can actually look up what Ontario households pay for electricity via the Ontario Energy Board’s bill calculator website.

This provides you with a break down on the charges a typical household faces depending on the utility you choose…………………………………………………

But notice there’s also other very significant items in this bill separate to the kilowatt-hour charge? There’s a “delivery” charge which is the cost of paying for the  distribution and transmission poles and wires. There’s also regulatory charges and also their sales tax is known as “HST” rather than GST for us.

So the Ontario 14 cents per kilowatt-hour charge that O’Brien and Dutton are referring to covers only the wholesale energy portion of their bill.

In Australia, we pay a majority of the costs of distribution and transmission in our cents per kilowatt-hour charge, in addition to wholesale energy costs, and then we get GST added on top. O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem to have appreciated this important aspect of electricity pricing in this country, which is different to Ontario.

But it actually gets worse.

I went digging on the official government energy retailer comparison sites- www.energymadeeasy.gov.au and www.energycompare.vic.gov.au and I initially couldn’t find a single Australian retailer selling electricity at 56 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

This was based on looking at offers based on a single rate tariff. Then I had a brainwave and looked at time-of-use rates. In Queensland and Victoria I still couldn’t find anyone wanting to charge me 56 cents for the peak period. 

But eventually I succeeded. Right at the bottom of the EnergyMadeEasy list of retailer offers – which were ordered from best to worst – sat EnergyAustralia as the worst offer, charging 57 cents for the peak period in South Australia (although with a compensating high solar feed-in tariff of 8.5 cents)…………………………………

To help out O’Brien and Dutton, I’ve prepared the table below which provides a proper apples versus apples comparison (as opposed to apples vs peak rate bananas) –[on original ]

…………………………………………….. Ontario’s nuclear debt debacle

Yet this comparison between Ontario and Australia misses a far more important part of the story that O’Brien and Dutton seem to be blissfully ignorant of. 

That is the history of the Ontario’s state owned utility – Ontario Hydro – and the unsustainable level of debt that it racked up over the 1980’s and 1990’s as a result of an ambitious nuclear plant construction program that went wrong. 

While this cost is no longer apparent in current electricity prices, Ontario businesses and households were stuck with paying back CAD$38.1 billion in debt (over $70 billion in Australian current day dollars) for more than 35 years after their public utility committed its last nuclear reactor to construction in 1981. 

So what went wrong?

In anticipation of large growth in electricity demand, over the 1970’s and 1980’s Ontario Hydro committed to construction 12 nuclear reactors with 9,000 MW of generating capacity. To fund the projects the public utility accessed commercial debt markets anticipating that it could comfortably repay this debt from the increased electricity demand it forecast. However, several things went wrong.

 The nuclear power stations took far longer to build and were around twice as expensive to build than had been planned

– Interest rates on debt rose to very high levels by historical standards over the 1980’s in order to contain the high levels of inflation that unfolded over the 1970’s and early 1980’s. With the nuclear power stations taking longer than expected to build, interest was accumulating on this debt with far less output from the plants to offset it.

– Lastly, Ontario Hydro’s estimate of large growth in electricity demand didn’t eventuate. A 1977 forecast projected a system peak of 57,000 MW by 1997. Actual peak demand in 1997 was 22,000 MW. This meant that the very large cost and associated debt of the large nuclear expansion had to be recovered from a much smaller volume of electricity sales than it had anticipated, making it much harder to pay off the debt without substantial increases in electricity prices.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “On April 1, 1999, the Ministry of Finance determined that Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2-billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt,” representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that could not be serviced in a competitive environment.”

So the CAD$38.1 billion in debt was transferred out of the electricity companies and into a special purpose government entity called the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC). This debt management corporation was given the following revenues to service the debt:

– Both residential and business consumers were required to pay a special “Debt Retirement Charge”. This charge was introduced in 2002 and lasted until 2016 for residential consumers and 2018 for business customers.

– The Ontario government would forgo any corporate income and other taxes owed by the offshoot electricity companies from Ontario Hydro so they could be diverted to the OEFC to pay down debt.

– If the cumulative profits of two of the new state power companies exceeded the $520m annual interest cost on their debts, then this would go towards paying stranded debt rather than dividends to the Ontario government.

None of this is apparent on current bills, but the burden of repaying the nuclear debt left the Ontario government and its taxpayers far poorer than Dutton and O’Brien seem to appreciate.

More things O’Brien doesn’t want to understand about Ontario’s nuclear power program

Dutton and O’Brien like to claim that nuclear power plants last a very long time and so therefore the large upfront cost of these plants isn’t something we should be too worried about………………………..

It’s not as simple as this. Nuclear power plants involve a range of components which are exposed to severe heat and mechanical stress. These all need to be replaced well before you get to 60 years, and such refurbishment comes at a cost.

Ontario’s experience is that refurbishment comes at a very significant cost. Less than 25 years after the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant construction was completed, it needed to commence refurbishment. The total cost? $12.8 billion in Canadian dollars or $14 billion Australian dollars. 

This is partly why, even though the original nuclear construction cost debt had been largely paid down and nuclear operating costs are lower than coal or gas plant, Ontario still pays more for its electricity than we do.

This is because the current owner of the nuclear power plants – Ontario Power Generation – operates under regulated return model where the regulator grants them the right to recover these refurbishment costs from electricity consumers.

Are O’Brien and Dutton about to commit to another Snowy 2.0 budget blow-out, but on steroids?

………………………………The problem here is that when you don’t know very much and you’re spending other people’s money, ego can easily cloud your judgement.  Don’t get me wrong, ego will often cloud business leaders’ judgement too. But their ability to spend money to feed their ego can only so far before either competitors or shareholders intervene.

Ontario taxpayers on the other hand realised far too late that their public utility, in cahoots with their politicians, were pursuing a nuclear vanity project built upon a poor understanding of the future, and without any competitor to discipline their ego. 

Australian taxpayers have seen a similar mistake unfold with the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant whose cost now stands at five times greater than the original expectation, and double what was meant to be a fixed price construction contract.

Snowy 2.0 is a parable of what goes wrong when:

– Politicians rush things leading to inadequate planning and preparation;

– Politicians fail to objectively and thoroughly evaluate alternatives; and

– Politicians fail to employ open and competitive markets to deliver end consumer outcomes.

All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.

Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve. Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.

While the budget blowout of Snowy 2.0 is bad enough, it pales into comparison with the kind of cost blow-outs that can unfold with nuclear power projects. As an example, the budget for completion of UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project now stands at $89.7 billion which is three times higher than what was originally budgeted.

We’ve all seen this movie before, including in Ontario, and it doesn’t end well……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontarios-huge-nuclear-debt-and-other-things-dutton-doesnt-understand-about-cost-of-electricity/

October 31, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs, Canada | 2 Comments

‘You couldn’t make this up’: Expert pans Ontario nuclear option

SMH, By Bianca Hall and Nick O’Malley, October 28, 2024

Ontario subsidises its citizens’ electricity power bills by $7.3 billion a year from general revenue, an international energy expert has said, contradicting the Coalition’s claim that nuclear reactors would drive power prices down in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has repeatedly cited the Canadian province as a model for cheaper power prices from nuclear.

“In Ontario, that family is paying half of what the family is paying here in Perth for their electricity because of nuclear power,” Dutton said in March. “Why wouldn’t we consider it as a country?”

In July, Dutton said Canadian consumers paid about one-quarter of Australian prices for electricity.

Professor Mark Winfield, an academic from York University in Canada who specialises in energy and environment, on Monday said the reaction among people in Ontario to the comparison had ranged from disbelief to “you couldn’t make this up”.

Ontario embarked on a massive building spree between the 1960s and the 1990s, Winfield told a briefing hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council.

In the process, he said, the provincial-owned utility building the generators “effectively bankrupted itself”. About $21 billion in debt had to be stranded to render the successor organisation Ontario Power Generation economically viable.

In 2015, the Canadian government approved a plan to refurbish 10 ageing reactors, but Winfield said the refurbishment program had also been beset by cost blowouts.

“The last one, [in] Darlington, east of Toronto, was supposed to cost $C4 billion and ended up costing $C14 [billion],” Winfield said.

“And that was fairly typical of what we saw, of a cost overrun in the range of about 2.5 times over estimate.”

In Melbourne, Dutton said while he respected new Queensland Premier David Crisafulli’s opposition to nuclear, he would work with “sensible” premiers in Queensland, South Australia and NSW on his plan, if he was elected………………………………………………..

Winfield said household bills were kept artificially low under the Ontario model, despite the high cost of refurbishing ageing nuclear facilities.

“There’s a legacy of that still in the system that we are effectively subsidising electricity bills to the tune of about $C7.3 billion a year out of general revenues. That constitutes most of the provincial deficit; that’s money that otherwise could be going on schools and hospitals.”

Dutton’s comments came as a parliamentary inquiry into the suitability of nuclear power for Australia continued in Canberra. Experts provided evidence on how long it would take to build a nuclear fleet, and the potential cost and impact on energy prices compared with the government’s plan to replace the ageing coal fleet with a system of renewables backed by storage and gas peakers.

……………………………………………………….. In its annual GenCost, CSIRO estimated earlier this year that a single large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost $16 billion and take nearly two decades to build, too late for it to help meet Australia’s international climate change commitments, which requires it to cut emissions 43 per cent by 2030. It found renewables to be the cheapest option for Australia.

Dutton has so far refused to be drawn on the costs of his nuclear policy. Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said the Coalition would release costings before the next federal election, which must be held by May.

O’Brien told this masthead “expert after expert” had provided evidence that nuclear energy placed downward pressure on power prices around the world. ……………. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-couldn-t-make-this-up-expert-pans-ontario-nuclear-option-20241028-p5klx1.html

October 29, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Top Australian honour (whaa-at !!!!) for American politician who helped push Australia into the shonky AUKUS agreement

Rex Patrick, 24 Oct 24

Albanese pours $5B of Australian taxpayers’ cash into US shipyards (with no guarantee #AUKUS subs will ever be delivered). He then arranges for the local US Congressman to get a top Australian honour. Icing on the cake for that guy.

Rep. Courtney to receive Australia’s top civilian award

WSHU | By Brian Scott-Smith, October 23, 2024 

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT-2) has been chosen for one of Australia’s top civilian awards. Courtney is one of a few Americans to be given the Order of Australia, which recognizes extraordinary service by a non-citizen…………………… He has also been instrumental in the AUKUS trilateral defense agreement between Australia, the UK and the U.S. to help provide nuclear submarines to Australia. It’s the first time the U.S. has entered into such an agreement with another country……..  https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2024-10-23/ct-joe-courtney-australia-civilian-award

October 25, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

South Australia sets spectacular new records for wind, solar and negative demand

Giles Parkinson, Sep 30, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-sets-spectacular-new-records-for-wind-solar-and-negative-demand/

Records continue to tumble across Australia’s main grids as the spring weather boosts the output of wind and solar and mild weather moderates demand, but none are as spectacular as those being set in South Australia.

The state’s unique end-of-the-line grid already leads the country, and arguably the globe, in the integration of variable wind and solar, with an average of more than 70 per cent of its demand over the last year and a world-first target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2027.

On Sunday, at 9.35 am, the state set a new milestone, setting a new record share of wind and solar (as a percentage of state electricity demand) of 150.7 per cent, beating a record set on Christmas Day last year, when – for obvious reasons – there was little electricity demand.

As Geoff Eldridge, from GPE NEMLog, notes, this means that the rooftop PV, along with large scale wind and solar farms, were generating 50.7 per cent more power than the state’s total electricity demand at the time.

The scale of excess output was further crystallised later in the day with a new minimum record for instantaneous residual demand, which hit minus 927 megawatts at 12.35pm.

Eldridge says residual demand is what’s left for other generators to supply after wind and solar have met a share of the demand. A negative residual demand means wind and solar were producing more electricity than SA needed, resulting in excess renewable generation which can be managed by exporting and battery charging. The remainder is curtailed.

Of the surplus 927 MW, the state was exporting 685 MW to Victoria, while another 163 MW was being soaked up by the state’s growing fleet of battery storage projects, and 730 MW of output was curtailed. Prices at the time were minus $47/MWh, a good opportunity for batteries to charge.

A further 84 MW was being produced by a couple of gas generators – not because their power output was needed, but because the state, at least for the moment, relies on them for essential grid services such as system strength and fault current.

That will be reduced considerably when the new link to NSW is completed in a few years, and it will allow the state to both export more, and import more when needs be.

“Balancing the system with such high renewable penetration is challenging but necessary as the energy transition progresses,” Eldridge says. “Managing excess generation through exports, storage, and curtailment is critical to keeping the grid stable and efficient.”

It wasn’t the only record to fall over the weekend. In Queensland, the country’s most coal dependent state in terms of annual share of demand and generation, large scale solar hit a record share of 34 per cent, and coal output – in megawatt terms – hit a record low of 2,882 MW.

The Queensland coal fleet capacity is more than 8,000 MW, so that is about as low as it can run until more units are closed down.

In Victoria on Saturday, just before the AFL grand final, rooftop solar also hit a new record output of 3,164 MW – although it did not push operational demand down low enough for the market operator to enact Minimum System Load protocols and possibly switch off some rooftop solar panels to maintain grid stability.

It had flagged a potential MSL event on Friday but cancelled it in the morning. Those events will likely occur at other times in spring and over the summer holidays, although the market operator is now working on new rules for big batteries to avoid a potentially unpopular and unwieldy solar switch off.

October 1, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

Australian Defence Minister Marles, with all pretension, flogging a dead seahorse

By Paul Keating, Sep 28, 2024,  https://johnmenadue.com/marles-with-all-pretention-flogging-a-dead-seahorse/

Richard Marles and his mate, the US defence secretary, are beginning to wilt under the weight of sustained comment in Australia critical of the AUKUS arrangement.

Marles, unable to sustain a cogent argument himself, has his US friend propping him up in London to throw a 10,000-mile punch at me – and as usual, failing to materially respond to legitimate and particular criticisms made of the AUKUS arrangement.

The US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, claims AUKUS would not compromise Australia’s ability to decide its own sovereign defence issues, a claim made earlier by Richard Marles and the prime minister.

But this would only be true until the prime minister and Marles got their phone call from the president, seeking to mobilise Australian military assets – wherein, both would click their heels in alacrity and agreement. The rest of us would read about it in some self-serving media statement afterwards. As my colleague, Gareth Evans, recently put it, “it defies credibility that Washington will ever go ahead with the sale of Virginias to us in the absence of an understanding that they will join the US in any fight in which it chooses to engage anywhere in our region, particularly over Taiwan”.

In London, Marles claimed that the logic behind AUKUS matched my policy as prime minister, in committing to the Collins class submarine program. This is completely untrue.

The Collins class submarine, at 3,400 tonnes, was designed specifically for the defence of Australia – in the shallow waters off the Australian continental shelf.

The US Virginia class boats at 10,000 tonnes, are attack submarines designed to stay and stand on far away station, in this case, principally to wait and sink Chinese nuclear weapon submarines as they exit the Chinese coast.

At 10,000 tonnes, the Virginias are too large for the shallow waters of the Australian coast – their facility is not in the defence of Australia, rather, it is to use their distance and stand-off capability to sink Chinese submarines. They are attack-class boats.

When Marles wilfully says “AUKUS matches the Collins class logic” during the Keating government years, he knows that statement to be utterly untrue. Factually untrue. The Collins is and was a “defensive” submarine – designed to keep an enemy off the Australian coast. It was never designed to operate as far away as China or to sit and lie in wait for submarine conquests.

And as Evans also recently made clear, eight Virginia class boats delivered in the 2040s-50s would only ever see two submarines at sea at any one time. Yet Marles argues that just two boats of this kind in the vast oceans surrounding us, materially alters our defensive capability and the military judgment of an enemy. This is argument unbecoming of any defence minister.

As I said at the National Press Club two years ago, two submarines aimed at China would be akin to throwing toothpicks at a mountain. That remains the position.

The fact is, the Albanese Government, through this program and the ambitious basing of American military forces on Australian soil, is doing nothing other than abrogating Australia’s sovereign right to command its own continent and its military forces.

Marles says “there has been demonstrable support for AUKUS within the Labor Party”. This may be true at some factionally, highly-managed national conference — like the last one — but it is utterly untrue of the Labor Party’s membership at large – which he knows.

The membership abhors AUKUS and everything that smacks of national sublimation. It does not expect these policies from a Labor Government.

September 30, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear in Australia would increase household power bills

Report Nuclear Electric Grid Energy Policy Australia

September 20, 2024, Johanna Bowyer and Tristan Edis, https://ieefa.org/resources/nuclear-australia-would-increase-household-power-bills

Key Findings

Typical Australian households could see electricity bills rise by AUD665/year on average under the opposition Coalition’s plans to introduce nuclear to the country’s energy mix.

IEEFA analysed six scenarios based on relevant international examples of nuclear power construction projects; in every scenario, bills increased by hundreds of dollars.

For households that use more electricity, bills could rise more – for a four-person household, the bill rise was found to be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and regions. 

The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.

Australia’s main federal opposition, the Liberal-National Coalition, has proposed building seven nuclear power plants across the country, including both large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). This report seeks to detail the likely impact on household consumers’ electricity bills from such a plan, based on recent real-world experience from construction costs for nuclear power plants around the world.

Rather than use theoretical projected costs, we have calculated the potential electricity bill impact for a range of nuclear cost recovery scenarios, based on the following real-world examples:

Finland: Olkiluoto Unit 3. France: Flamanville Unit 3. UK: Hinkley Point C. US: Vogtle Units 3 and 4.US SMR: NuScale SMR. Czech Republic: Dukovany proposed plant expansion.

The first four scenarios are based on actual, recent nuclear power plant construction costs and timeframes for countries in liberal democracies where costs are transparent. Commenting on nuclear construction cost estimates, electricity market economist Professor Paul Joskow states: “The best estimates are drawn from actual experience rather than engineering cost models.”

In the case of SMRs, no plants have been successfully completed in a democratic country, so we instead used the one example of a binding contract offer to build such a plant in the US, the now-cancelled NuScale project. We also used this approach for assessing the costs for a proposal to build South Korean APR technology (a design that the Coalition has cited for potential implementation in Australia) in a separate democratic country with laws protecting labour rights, outside of its country of origin – the Czech Republic.

Household electricity bills impact

We found that electricity bills would need to rise in order for nuclear costs to be recovered. The chart below illustrates the resulting increase in typical household power bills if nuclear power plants with similar costs and characteristics to the international examples were built in Australia. The average bill increase was AUD665/year across states and nuclear scenarios for households with a median level of electricity consumption. The lowest impact is equivalent to bill increases of AUD260-AUD353 per year, linked to estimated costs for the pre-construction project Dukovany, which is highly likely to underestimate final costs. The lowest impact from a nuclear plant successfully completed (Vogtle) is AUD383-AUD461 per year for an average household. Meanwhile, the UK experience with Hinkley Point C indicates electricity bill rises of more than AUD1,000 per year are possible.

Figure 1 [on original]: Increase in typical household electricity bill to recover cost of nuclear plants based on different countries’ experience (AUD/year)

The range of costs is wide due to the significant cost differentials for large-scale nuclear in different countries, and the significant cost uncertainty for SMR technology, which is still under development. The impact in each state can vary due to differing typical electricity consumption levels in each state, and different electricity bill cost structures.

For households using more electricity than the median level, the bill increases from nuclear would be higher. For example, for a four-person household the bill impact would be AUD972/year on average across nuclear scenarios and states, and for a five-person household AUD1,182/year.

How nuclear costs are reflected on electricity bills

These results might come as surprising to some, because large-scale nuclear is a mature technology currently in use across a wide range of countries. In addition, misinterpreted data on retail electricity prices (which also include the costs of powerlines and taxes, not just generators and so is misleading) can show some cases of nations that use nuclear who have lower retail prices than Australia.

However, in almost all cases around the world, the cost of nuclear power plant construction and financing is not fully reflected in market prices for power. This is because either nuclear power plants are very old and their costs are largely depreciated, or governments have acted to recover the costs either through taxpayers, or via levies which are independent of electricity markets – for example in France, the UK and Ontario, Canada. In other jurisdictions, such as a number of US states including Georgia where the Vogtle power plant is located, there isn’t actually an electricity market in operation, with consumers instead served by a regulated monopoly without any competitive choice.

The Coalition has outlined something different, ruling out taxpayer subsidies and stating that any government investments in nuclear plants would receive a commercial return. This implies that the Coalition expect that wholesale electricity market prices will be sufficient for nuclear power plants in each state to recover their construction costs plus a commercial level of return. The Coalition has also outlined that these nuclear power plants would operate at full capacity almost all of the time. Therefore, power prices would need to average out at the level a nuclear plant needs to be commercially viable – to recover their costs – almost all of the time.

High costs of recent nuclear projects

The reason bills increased in this study is because recent large-scale nuclear projects across Europe and North America involved very high costs. The European Pressured Reactor (EPR) program had promised to deliver more efficient, safer nuclear power. However, the three recent projects (Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C), which have either just been completed or are under construction, have all faced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts. If plants with similar costs and characteristics were built in Australia, they would require a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) between AUD250 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and AUD346/MWh to recover their costs.

A few other types of reactors are being built or considered internationally of a similar design to what the Coalition indicates might be built in Australia: the South Korean APR1000 design proposed at Dukovany in the Czech Republic; and a Westinghouse AP1000 design recently completed at Vogtle in the US. The Vogtle plant experienced seven years of delays and actual capital costs (excluding financing costs) 1.7 times the original estimates. Those plants present LCOEs of between AUD197 and AUD220 per MWh in an Australian context – noting the Dukovany costs are only initial pre-construction estimates and could rise.

Based on NuScale, we estimate that the LCOE of nuclear SMR in an Australian context would be AUD289/MWh – but could be far higher if construction extends beyond the 3.25 years used in this study – as financing costs increase as construction timelines extend.

Capital costs (excluding financing costs) of recent nuclear power builds have tended to blow out by a factor of between 1.7 and 3.4, leading to financial difficulties for companies involved. All conventional nuclear projects built in recent years in the US and Europe – Vogtle, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C and Flamanville 3 – have contributed to financial difficulties for companies involved. Westinghouse, which was the technology provider for Vogtle, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. France’s AREVA, who was the original technology provider for Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Point C, came close to bankruptcy over 2015, which required a French Government-sponsored bail-out.

The chart below [on original] details the wholesale market prices required for each of the recently constructed or quoted nuclear plants to be commercially viable, relative to the current wholesale electricity costs being passed through in household electricity bills in the regions of Victoria, NSW, South East Queensland (SEQ) and South Australia (SA).

[Figure 2: Current wholesale energy cost (WEC) component of current household bills compared to commercial price to recover nuclear plant costs in Australian context (AUD/MWh)]

Australia would likely face even higher large-scale nuclear costs than these recent international examples, due to the country’s limited nuclear capability and the small size of any potential Australian nuclear build-out program. With seven nuclear power stations proposed (two of them SMR-only), all at separate sites, there will be limited scope to achieve learning-based cost reductions like those seen in a large continuous build program, for example the build program in South Korea on which CSIRO’s GenCost costings are based. South Korea has built 26 reactors since the 1970s. Further, the assumptions in this report have provided an optimistic levelised cost of electricity for nuclear, for example using a 60-year economic lifetime, 93% capacity factor, and a low discount rate.

Our analysis suggests household power bills would need to rise significantly for nuclear power plants to become a commercially viable investment in the absence of substantial, taxpayer-funded government subsidies. In IEEFA’s opinion, any plan to introduce nuclear energy in Australia – such as that proposed by the Coalition – should be examined thoroughly, with particular focus on the potential impact on electricity system costs and household bills, and with detailed analysis of alternative technologies such as renewables and firming.

September 22, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs | Leave a comment

The massive new projects propelling South Australia towards 100 per cent net renewables

 The season of renewable records has begun early in Australia, sending
average coal power down below 50 per cent for the first time, establishing
new records for wind output, and sending grid demand to new lows across the
main grid.

The state at the forefront of the country’s energy transition
is, without a shadow of a doubt, South Australia. It kicked out coal in
2016, and is steadily reducing its dependence on gas. When a new
transmission link to NSW is completed in the next two years, the state
expects to run at 100 per cent net renewables – reducing gas to a support
role and becoming the first multi-gigawatt scale grid in the world to reach
such a milestone through wind and solar, rather than more conventional
renewable sources.

Big industry is lining up to build new factories and
production facilities to take advantage of cleaner power and lower
wholesale prices, and BHP is talking of doubling its mining production at
the giant Olympic Dam – and its smelting and refining capacity. The
latest data shows that wind and solar provided enough power to meet more
than 70 per cent of the state’s electricity demand in the last 12 months
– although the government says it is 75 per cent.

Over the past 30 days
it has been 86.4 per cent, and over the past week it has been more than 105
per cent. Rooftop solar now supplies the equivalent of all state demand on
occasions, presenting a complication for the market operator which prefers
to run the grid with assets it can control. It’s working on that solution
with new inverter standards and grid protocols, including solar
switch-offs. South Australia also led the country, and the world, in the
installation of the first big battery, the original “Tesla Big Battery”
now properly known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve.

 Renew Economy 6th Sept 2024

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-massive-new-projects-propelling-south-australia-towards-100-per-cent-net-renewables/

September 8, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

A quick update on Submissions to the Australian Parliament about the new AUKUS agreement.

The remaining 16 Submissions are clear and straight-out in their condemnation of the agreement.

So far, – at 6 pm Tuesday 3rd September – 18 Submissions have been published

For several days, there were only 2 Submissions up. One, (by Robert Heron) – gives some weak criticism of the agreement. The other gives fulsome support to the agreement – it’s by Crispin Rovere – poker player, AI enthusiast, science fiction writer – who claims to be an “internationally recognised nuclear expert” – recognised by whom, I wonder?)

The remaining 16 Submissions are clear and straight-out in their condemnation of the agreement. On the whole, they give sound arguments for their opposition. I will be publishing them over the next days.

One wonders whether Australia’s always conformist and now cowardly Labor politicians will take any notice of these strong opinions. Liberal/National politicians can be relied on to kow-tow to their corporate backers and to the USA. Thank goodness Australia’s system gives intelligent iIndependents and Greens a chance to have a say.

Here are some of the core statements among those 16 Submissions:

I wish to express my complete opposition to the Aukus agreement. Australia should pursue an independent non aligned foreign policy.

It is sheer lunacy that we have put ourselves in a position which only profits the US and UK.

It is not in the best interests of the Australian people on a number of grounds

This Agreement should be rejected – the underlying premises are false or misleading.

The National Interest Analysis is negligent

Proceeding down the path of AUKUS will not make us safer. This Agreement should
not go forward.

Firstly, AUKUS is a horrifying idea in the sense that it is taking money away from the
Australia institutions that well and truly need it.

The acquisition of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (some of them second-hand) costing up to
A$368 billion is the largest defence project since World War Two and the worst foreign policy
mistake.

Not only does the AUKUS spending not produce social good it is harmful and causes risks to
Australian society.

Much to lose and nothing to gain.

September 4, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA | Leave a comment

That time when Canada cancelled its nuclear submarine order

The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.

By Julie Macken and Michael Walker, Aug 30, 2024,  https://johnmenadue.com/that-time-when-canada-cancelled-its-nuclear-submarine-order/

Back in 1987, when no one knew that the Cold War was just about to end, the Canadian Government signed up to build 10 nuclear-powered submarines. That submarine program lasted for all of two years before being cancelled in 1989. No nuclear Canadian sub ever even began construction, let alone getting put in the water.

There is a very real sense of déjà vu when we look at the Canadian experience and the current Australian experience of AUKUS. The good news is that it is not too late to learn the lessons the Canadians learnt for us.

One of the reasons for the Canadian cancellation was the $8 billion price tag, or about $19 billion in today’s money. Two billion dollars per submarine now sounds like a bargain compared to the astronomical $45 billion per submarine under AUKUS. Canada decided it had other priorities where that money could be put to better use.

But before the contract was cancelled in Canada, the ministries involved in its construction became embroiled in conflict, the Government itself was in a cost-of-living-crisis with immediate, real-world needs pressing and the hasty and secretive choice of vessel design came under withering criticism from the Treasury department for poor procurement with the cost expected to blow out to $30 billion ($70 billion today). And finally, media support eroded, with 71% of the population opposed to the project.

Déjà vu much?

On 12 June, the US Congressional Research Document service produced a research and advice document called the Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and AUKUS Submarine (Pillar 1) Project: Background and Issues for Congress.

The document points out the AUKUS deal was a three-step process. The first was to establish a US-UK rotational submarine force in Western Australia. The second was that the US would sell us three or five Virginia nuclear powered submarines and the third would be that the UK assists us in building our own AUKUS class nuclear submarines.

But the Congressional report outlines when comparing the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” of the three stage plan, it might just be better for the US to operate more of its own boats out of WA. That is, “procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs”.

That’s right, why bother with the whole step two and three when the US is best served by simply operating its nuclear-powered attack submarines out of WA?

This is an extraordinary development and one that demands more attention than has been given previously because a number of issues flow from this kind of thinking.

First, this potentially frees up $400 billion that could be put to far better use on a national housing construction program or high-speed rail network running the entire east coast of Australia or other large and much-needed nation-building projects. But not so fast.

The US Congressional Research Document suggests that “those funds (the $400 billion) could be invested in other military capabilities”, such as long-range missiles and bombers, “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.

The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.

The fact that the document only referenced the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” from the US perspective, without any attempt to imagine how Australia may view becoming a life support for a US submarine base, makes the nature of our relationship pretty clear.

Australia’s Government may not consider it necessary to have done its due diligence on AUKUS but the Americans are happy to do that for us and, you guessed it, even though they quietly have doubts about the SSN project, they’ve already thought of plenty of other ways to spend our money on their own defence objectives. Spending it on the well-being and prosperity of our own people didn’t even rate a mention.

September 1, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Canada, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Opposing a USA-led international nuclear agreement that is bizarrely unfair to Australia

Australians can object to the agreement, by putting in a submission to a Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee.

Submissions are due by September 1st. So far, only 2 submissions have been published. They’re sort of “zipped” – so I can’t read them. You can bet your boots they are from the nuclear lobby

I’s a bit of an IT hurdle to actually get your submission in. That’s after you’ve even written it. Which is tough, too, as the general public in Australia knows nothing about it.

But anyway, here’s one little effort

TITLE: Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties concerning the:
Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government
of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion.


This submission urges that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends against
the Australian Government signing this Agreement as I believe that it is not in the best interests of the Australian people on a number of grounds, as outlined in this submission


Australia would be landed with high level nuclear waste – This Agreement
requires Australia to “be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and
disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the
operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article,
including radioactive waste generated through submarine operations, maintenance,
decommissioning, and disposal.” (ARTICLE IV Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants,
Related Equipment and Material, Section D).


The health risk to Australians brought in by the construction of nuclear facilities
and the management and storage of radioactive wastes. Buying second-hand
nuclear submarines make this waste danger another hazard, as we’d be buying
already existing toxic wastes.


Under this agreement it is possible for a nuclear weapon to be present on
Australian shores– this would it would be a clear breach of the highest order of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) because as a signatory to
NPT Australia is not allowed to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
The agreement does not guarantee that the USA will continue with the nuclear
submarine arrangements, but still ensures that Australia will cop the costs. This is
blatantly unfair.

It is extraordinarily unfair and bizarre that under Article IV E. “Australia shall
indemnify, the United States and the United Kingdom against any liability, loss,
costs, damage or injury (including third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or
resulting from Nuclear Risks connected with the design, manufacture, assembly,
transfer, or utilization of any Material or Equipment, including Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Plants and component parts and spare parts thereof transferred or to be
transferred pursuant to this Article.”


The ‘National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14 with attachment on consultation’,
acknowledges that “There has been no public consultation”, with paragraph 55
stating that “No public consultation has been undertaken, given the classified scope of consultations between the Parties on the Agreement, including matters relating to
national security and operational capability.”


The Treaty clearly outlines that Special Nuclear Material to be transferred under the
agreement, “shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to
irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium”, (ARTICLE VI Conditions and Guarantees,
SECTION I –SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL)


In conclusion – the whole agreement is unfair, poorly organised, and should not be
accepted by Australia, particularly in this situation where there has been no public
consultation – set up completely in the dark as far as the Australian people are
concerned.

Noel Wauchope

August 29, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Australia offers U.S. a vast new military launchpad in China conflict

Australia is expanding its northern military bases, with U.S. support, to counter China’s growing threat. Critics quip it’s become the “51st state.”

Washington Post, By Michael E. Miller, August 24, 2024

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE TINDAL, Australia — Deep in the outback, a flurry of construction by Australia and the United States is transforming this once quiet military installation into a potential launchpad in case of conflict with China.

Runways are being expanded and strengthened to accommodate the allies’ biggest airplanes, including American B-52 bombers. A pair of massive fuel depots is rising side by side to supply U.S. and Australian fighter jets. And two earth-covered bunkers have been built for U.S. munitions.

But the activity at RAAF Tindal, less than 2,000 miles from the emerging flash points of the South China Sea,isn’t unique. Across Australia, decades-old facilities — many built by the United States during World War II — are now being dusted off or upgraded amid growing fears of another global conflict.

“This isabout deterrence,” Australia’s defense minister, Richard Marles, said in an interview. “We’re working together to deter future conflict and to provide for the collective security of the region in which we live.”

The United States has ramped up defense ties with allies across the region, including with the Philippines and Japan, as it tries to fend off an increasingly assertive and aggressive China. Australia offers the United States a stable and friendly government, a small but capable military, and a vast expanse from which to stage or resupply military efforts.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, hailing the “the extraordinary strength of our unbreakable alliance with Australia,” said after a meeting with Marles earlier this month that deepercooperation — including base upgrades and more frequent rotational bomber deployments — would help build “greater peace, stability, and deterrence across the region.”

Australia has also joined the AUKUS agreement, under which the United States and Britain will provide it with nuclear-propelled submarines, some of the world’s most closely guarded technology.

These moves underscore a bigger shift, as Canberra has grown increasingly tight with Washington as they both grow wary of Beijing. Military cooperation has become so extensive that critics quip Australia is becoming the United States’ “51st state.”

Mihai Sora, a former Australian diplomat who is an analyst at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney think tank, has a different metaphor. Australia is “an unsinkable aircraft carrier right at the bottom of the critical maritime sea lanes.”

“As the stakes increase in the South China Sea, as the risk over conflict in Taiwan increases, northern Australia in particular becomes of increasing strategic value for the United States,” Sora said.

American representatives ona recent congressional delegation to Darwin,onAustralia’s northern coast, agreed.

“This provides a central base of operations from which to project power,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during the trip.

Some Australian experts, however, argue that the growing U.S. military footprint doesn’t deter conflict with China so much as ensure Australia will be involved.

“I have deep misgivings about the whole enterprise” of increased U.S. military activity in Australia, said Sam Roggeveen, a former Australian intelligence analyst who is also at the Lowy Institute. “It conflates America’s strategic objectives in Asia with ours, and it makes those bases a target.”

……………………………………….Australia has spent roughly $1 billion on upgrading the Tindal air force base. Built by U.S. Army engineers in 1942 to stage bombing raids on Japanese targets in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, Tindal is now the site of dozens of construction projects. A key one is the new parking apron capable of accommodating four of Australia’s biggest planes: KC-30 tankers that can refuel fighter jets and allow for far more distant attacks.

But there are also plans for the United States to build its own parking apron here, big enough for six B-52 bombers capable of reaching mainland China.

“That is absolutely something China would pay attention to,” Roggeveen said.

Marles declined to comment on the increasing rotations mentioned by Austin but said the trajectory is “an increasing American force posture in Australia.” We see that as very much in Australia’s national interest,” he said. “People understand that we are living through challenging times, when the global rules-based order is under pressure.”………………………………………………………………..

Australia is also surveying three “bare bases” — skeleton facilities in remote parts of western Australia and Queensland — with an eye to upgrading them so heavier Australian and American airplanes can use them, said Brigadier Michael Say, who leads Australia’s Force Posture Initiative. He said it’s still being determined whether the United States will pay for some of the improvements. [WHAA-A-AT!]

In the Cocos Islands, tiny coral atolls in the Indian Ocean northwest of the Australian continent and just south of Indonesia, Canberra will soon begin upgrading the airstrip to accommodate heavier military aircraft, including the P-8A Poseidon, a “submarine hunter” that could monitor increased Chinese naval activity in the area. A U.S. Navy construction contract published in June listed the Cocos as a possible project location, but Say said it hasn’t yet been decided whether the United States will contribute.

Diversifying — or redistributing?

These “bare bases,” which stretch for 3,000 miles from east to west, fit a new U.S. strategy of dispersing forces to prevent China from delivering a knockout blow.

“If one location gets taken out, the U.S. can still project force, it can still replenish and resupply and reinforce its troops,” Sora said. “Australia is fundamental to that but is just one plank in America’s regional force posture.”

Roggeveen questioned, however, whether the United States is actually increasing its capabilities in the region or merely moving assets out of places like Guam that are more immediately threatened by China’s improving missile capability. Under AUKUS, the United States will begin rotating up to four nuclear-powered submarines through western Australia in 2027………………………………………

Some concerns linger in Washington over Australia’s commitment, however. During the visit to Darwin, McCaul and other representatives asked about the 99-year lease a Chinese company holds over the port surrounding the Australian naval base. Australian officials said two reviews had found there wasn’t a security concern, and that in the case of a conflict, the port could be nationalized.

“Australia relies on China for prosperity and on America for security,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) told The Post. “That’s the balance they are playing.”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/24/us-military-base-australia-china/—


—

August 28, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Too big to fail? Who cares if there’s no accountability – the Nuclear Lie

How is it that political parties can get away promising huge projects that won’t eventuate for 10 to 20 years; that’s four to eight election cycles in the future.

Even if the current opposition leader, Peter Dutton, manages to sell the nuclear dream at the next election, he won’t be around to see his promises are kept. He simply isn’t accountable for the claims he’s making today.

by David Salt | Aug 21, 2024 https://sustainabilitybites.com/too-big-to-fail-who-cares-if-theres-no-accountability/
Building big on big promises of endless clean energy ignores the limits of our institutions. It’s something rarely considered in the febrile, volatile environment of contemporary politics. We pull our leaders up on the smallest of inconsistencies but let them get away with the biggest of lies. When you next cast your vote, keep in mind that extraordinary promises require extraordinary accountability.

The nuclear lie

Australia is currently contesting a future based on nuclear energy vs renewables.

The conservative opposition Coalition has put forward a ‘plan’ to build seven government-owned nuclear plants across Australia that will come online around 2035. The promise is that these plants will provide cheap, reliable carbon free electricity and help our nation achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050. It’s a strange policy requiring massive government investment and control from a party the stands for smaller government. But that’s just the beginning of strangeness around this thinking.

To call it a ‘plan’ is drawing a long bow because the proposal comes with no costings or modelling attached; existing legislation prevents the construction of nuclear power plants; and Australia currently lacks the necessary capacity to develop a nuclear power network (something the nuclear loving coalition did nothing about while in government for most of the last decade). Experts from across Australia don’t believe it would be possible to build the plants by 2035, or that they can produce electricity at anything close to what can be produced by renewables.

However, if the electorate was to buy the proposal and vote in the conservatives, it would result in the extension of coal power (to fill the gap till nuclear comes online), the expansion of gas energy and a redirection of investment away from renewables, which don’t really complement nuclear anyway.

While questions are being asked about all of these uncertainties, I think a more fundamental issue relates to governance and scales of time.

How is it that political parties can get away promising huge projects that won’t eventuate for 10 to 20 years; that’s four to eight election cycles in the future. Even if the current opposition leader, Peter Dutton, manages to sell the nuclear dream at the next election, he won’t be around to see his promises are kept. He simply isn’t accountable for the claims he’s making today.

Flawed accountability

Clearly this is a weakness of our democratic system of governance. We vote someone in to represent us for a number of years, three to six years in most electorates around the world, and we hold these representatives to account for the how they perform in delivering what they promised at election time. This tends to have voters actively reflecting on day-to-day business (taxes, health care delivery, education etc), while simply ignoring the hundreds of billions of dollars of commitments made for promises that sit well over the electoral horizon (promises like nuclear submarine fleets and nuclear power plants).

This weakness in accountability appears to be increasingly exploited by all sides of politics. Voters are collapsing under the ‘cost of living’, holding their breaths with every quarterly inflation announcement, and quick to pull down any politician who seems insensitive to the needs of ‘working families’.

Yet, at the same time, voters seem oblivious to the consequences of political leaders making a $100 billion dollar pledge to be delivered in 3-4 election’s time (though I note critics say this plan could easily end up costing as much as $600 billion). Consequently, we’re seeing more of these big announcements because the pollies know the electorate is not going to hold them to account. They simply don’t have the capacity to take it in, they are too absorbed by the day-to-day stuff.

Extraordinary accountability

The late, great astronomer Carl Sagan once said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. He was referring to the possibility of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life, but the same principle should apply to extraordinary political promises. If a political leader makes an extraordinary promise that can’t be delivered in one to two electoral cycles and commits vast quantities of (scarce) resources, then they need to put up a corresponding level of ‘extraordinary accountability’ before their case should be considered seriously by the broader electorate.

It’s not just the money involved and skills needed, it’s also how such a goal might be met over several electoral cycles. Bipartisan support, you would think, would have to be a basic first step.

A couple of decades ago Prime Minister John Howard passed the Charter of Budget Honesty Act in an effort to make political parties more accountable for the spending they promised. Many claim it has achieved little however, at the very least, it was an effort to show the electorate that politicians were aware that they needed to demonstrate greater accountability for the promises they make.

In the case of Dutton’s nuclear plan, this accountability is completely missing. However, rather than acknowledging this and attempting to build a stronger case, the Coalition has instead been attacking the institutions that have been examining the proposal (like CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering). The conservatives have simply written them off when they question the validity of the proposal. (“I’m not interested in the fanatics,” says Dutton.) This doubling down is doubly dumb because it involves both extraordinary promises with no proof and the politicisation of independent experts.

Beyond nuclear

But this tendency to aim extraordinarily big without extraordinary accountability goes way beyond Australia’s future nuclear energy ambitions. Consider the quest for fusion energy.

Europe is chasing the holy grail of clean energy by investing in fusion power. The multi-country International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project was dreamt up in the 1980s and took over 25 years to come together as a formal collaboration between China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States. Construction began in 2010 with operations expected to start about a decade later. But manufacturing faults, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the complexity of a first-of-a-kind machine (one of the most complex machines in the world) have all slowed progress and now ITER will not turn on until 2034, 9 years later than currently scheduled. Energy producing fusion reactions—the goal of the project—won’t come online until 2039!

ITER is a doughnut-shaped reactor, called a tokamak, in which magnetic fields contain a plasma of hydrogen nuclei hot enough to fuse and release energy. The technocrats running the project will gleefully explain that particle beams and microwaves heat the plasma to 150 million degrees Celsius—10 times the temperature of the Sun’s core—while a few meters away the superconducting magnets must be cooled to minus 269°C, a few degrees above absolute zero. Amazing as that sounds, it’s possibly less challenging than coordinating the actions and investment choices of the world’s superpowers decades into the future; Russia, China and the US are not exactly buddies at the moment. How strong do the ‘particle beams’ have to be to hold this agreement together for 20-30 years.

And even if ITER never eventuates, the possibility of ‘unlimited, clean energy’ over the horizon impacts investment decisions today. We’re seeing this even with the nuclear fission debate today in Australia as investors become wary of putting their money into renewables with the opposition promising nuclear powerplants just down the road.

And then there’s growing talk about implementing geoengineering solutions to fix humanity’s existential overheating problem (‘global boiling’). We’re talking pumping sulphates into the stratosphere, giant mirrors in space and fertilising the ocean to draw down carbon in the atmosphere. Playing God by ‘controlling’ the Earth system is going to be as big a governance issue as it is a technical challenge. And, given we’re doing so poorly on energy solutions using technology that’s relatively well understood, we’d be wise to demand extraordinary accountability before swallowing any promises in this domain.

Going thermonuclear

Which is not to say that ‘thermonuclear’ is not potentially a big part of a possible energy solution, just not the man-made kind. That big ball of energy in the sky called the Sun is driven by thermonuclear fusion, and this energy is there for the harvesting via photovoltaic cells (and indirectly by wind turbines).

And the accountability on these renewable sources of power doesn’t need the same level of extraordinary accountability that nuclear and thermonuclear demands because it can be delivered now, in the same electoral cycle as the promise to deliver it.

Renewables are not without their own set of issues but in terms of cost, feasibility AND accountability, it’s a solution that Australia (and the world) should be implementing now. Renewables are not ‘too big to fail’ but waiting twenty years before switching to them is simply too little too late.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »