Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty, book by Murray Horton
Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa, 12 Nov 24, Reprinted from Covert Action Magazine
Andrew Fowler’s book Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco That Sank Australia’s Sovereignty (Melbourne University Press, 2024) was not written by a member of the peace movement. That is both a strength and a weakness. A strength, because Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist, who has worked in mainstream Australian current affairs TV. So, it can’t be dismissed as “anti-American, anti-military” propaganda.
But it is a weakness because the author never questions the basic tenet of the book’s subject—why does Australia need any submarines at all, regardless of whether they are conventionally powered or nuclear powered. The book’s focus is a forensic analysis of who won the highly lucrative battle to supply Australia’s new subs—it was all set up to be France but then, after hidden, sub-surface maneuvering worthy of one of the book’s subjects, Australia and the U.S. torpedoed the French and did a deal among themselves.
This book is about AUKUS (Australia, UK, U.S.), the new kid on the “Indo-Pacific” block—although it should be pointed out that the UK is an awfully long way away from either the Indo or the Pacific. It is an attempt to build a new Western military alliance, initially between those three countries but with the prospect of other countries (including New Zealand) joining the ill-defined AUKUS Pillar Two at some unspecified time in the future. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The book is about the birth of AUKUS, which is all about submarines.
AUKUS
I’ve written about AUKUS previously in Covert ActionMagazine, so I refer you to that for the back story. In 2016 Australia signed a $A50 billion contract for France to build it 12 state of the art conventionally powered submarines for the Australian Navy. It was the largest defence contact in the history of both France and Australia. The right-wing Liberal Party was in Government in Australia, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The book names names—the man who fronted the deception and betrayal of France was Scott Morrison, who replaced Turnbull as the Liberal Prime Minister in 2018, in an internal Party coup (a common occurrence in Australian politics). Behind the scenes, the key man was Andrew Shearer, “a vehemently pro-American China hawk” who went on to become Director-General of National Intelligence. Right up until just before AUKUS was announced in 2021, Morrison’s government continued to assure France that it was proceeding with the contract to buy French submarines.
Dumping France For the U.S.
Instead of 12 diesel-powered French subs, Australia signed up to have the U.S. and UK build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) subs for its Navy. The cost is astronomical—up to $A368 billion by 2055. Yes, that’s right—those eight subs will not be ready for more than 30 years. The first of them is unlikely to be ready until the 2040s so, to fill that gap, Australia will buy three existing U.S. subs from the early 2030s, at a cost of up to $A58b, with an option to buy two more. This is a staggering amount to spend on one military project from a country with a population of just under 27 million people.
“(AUKUS) was a clear victory for Washington, which had been concerned for some time that France had a different view on how to deal with the rise of China… There was barely a murmur of opposition from the media. Morrison had pulled off a major achievement of what U.S. public intellectual Noam Chomsky describes as the political art of ‘manufacturing consent’…”.
“How did it happen that the bulk of analysis and criticism of the submarine deal came from two former Prime Ministers, Paul Keating (Labor) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) who, though on opposing sides of politics, were united in warning that the submarine deal stripped away Australia’s sovereignty……………………………..
Australia Expected To Fight Alongside U.S. In War With China
There is only the feeblest pretense that these nuclear submarines (still decades away from reality) will be used to defend Australia. Their role will be to patrol close to the Chinese coast, to hem in the Chinese Navy and, in the event of war, to attack China with cruise missiles. That’s the theory, anyway. The advantage of their being nuclear-powered is that they don’t have to return to port to refuel. U.S. hawks expect Australia to fight on its side in any war with China over Taiwan………………………………………………………………………………………..
Integration With U.S. Military
There is a lot more to the U.S.-Australia military relationship than some exorbitantly expensive nuclear submarines that may or may not ever materialise. There is the top-secret Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency Pine Gap spy base near Alice Springs, in central Australia, which is crucial to the global warfighting abilities of the U.S. There is the North West Cape facility on the westernmost point of mainland Australia, which the US Navy uses to communicate with its nuclear attack subs. There is Australia’s increasing involvement with the U.S. military and intelligence satellite programme, in preparation for war in space.
“Australia’s integration with the U.S. military was, of course, well underway before the AUKUS agreement. As already noted, Pine Gap and North West Cape are part of this. But there is also the basing of thousands of U.S. Marines in Darwin (northern coast), the stationing of nuclear-capable B-52s at Tindal (Australian Air Force base, northern Australia), and the stationing of U.S. military throughout the Australian Defence Force, including from the National Reconnaissance Office at the military headquarters in Canberra… Though Defence Minister Richard Marles has ruled out automatic support of the United States in any war over Taiwan, it is difficult to see how Australia won’t be involved. Pine Gap, Tindal, North West Cape and Perth (Western Australia’s biggest city) will all be integral to the battle.”
Change Of Government; No Change Of Foreign Policy
Scott Morrison’s Liberal government was voted out at the 2022 Australian election and was replaced by Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party. But Australia’s commitment to AUKUS remained unchanged………………………………………………………………………………
“Nuked” specifically attributes Labor’s fervent desire not to be seen as “anti-American” to the events of 1975, when the Central Intelligence Agency and its local collaborators, succeeded in getting Gough Whitlam’s Labor government overthrown in a bloodless coup. The U.S. covert state was particularly concerned about Whitlam’s revelations about its Pine Gap spy base and possible threats to close it. Jeremy Kuzmarov has recently written about this in CovertAction Magazine (15/11/23), so I refer you to that.
For half a century the Australian Labor Party has lived in fear of the same thing happening again, and has bent over backwards to prove its loyalty to the U.S.
………The consequences of the fear that drove the ALP leadership to embrace AUKUS with barely a second thought will haunt them for years to come. Just as Morrison was only too willing to trade Australian’s independence for the chance to win an election, so too was Labor. Now it is left to make work a deeply flawed scheme that, more than ever before, ties Australia’s future to whoever is in the White House.”
Jobs For The Boys
And what has happened to Scott Morrison, who retired from politics in 2024? “Along with Trump’s former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, Morrison became a strategic adviser to U.S. asset management firm DYNE Maritime, which launched a $157 U.S. million fund to invest in technologies related to AUKUS. ………
“Morrison also became Vice-Chair of American Global Strategies (AGS), headed by former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. AGS, stacked with former Pentagon, White House and State Department officials, boasts that it ‘assists clients as they navigate U.S. government processes,’ a useful addition to any company wanting to boost profits in the burgeoning area of military spending.”
New Zealand & AUKUS
…………………………………………………………………………… There are plenty of similarities between Australia and New Zealand but also significant differences. Whereas Australian governments of either party fall over themselves to loyally serve the U.S. empire, New Zealand has been nuclear free by law since the 1980s (and it was an Australian Labor government, on behalf of the U.S., which tried to pressure New Zealand to drop the policy. That pressure backfired).
……………………………………………………………….But there is a constant push to get New Zealand further entangled in the U.S. war machine, including Pillar Two of AUKUS (which has been, thus far, only identified as involving “advanced military technology”). New Zealand currently has a very pro-American Government, which is already a non-member “partner” of NATO and which is eager to serve the U.S……………………………………..
Not All New Zealand Politicians Lining Up To Grovel To Uncle Sam.
For a refreshing contrast, here’s an extract from a recent (2/10/24) press statement from Te Pāti Māori, the indigenous party, which has six Members of Parliament (out of 123). “Meanwhile the New Zealand Government is in talks with the United States about joining AUKUS to further support their war efforts. This represents the next phase of global colonisation, and it is being negotiated behind closed doors,” Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi said.
“The U.S. wants to use Aotearoa as a Pacific spy base. This could mean the end of our longstanding nuclear free policy to allow their war ships into our waters. AUKUS threatens our sovereignty as an independent nation, and the Mana Motuhake of every nation in the Pacific. It threatens to drag Aotearoa into World War 3,” said Waititi.
“The New Zealand government is putting everyone in Aotearoa at risk through their complicity. They must end all talks about joining AUKUS immediately. They must sanction Israel and cut ties with all countries who are committing and aiding war crimes,” said Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer………………………………. more https://gpja.org.nz/2024/11/12/nuked-the-submarine-fiasco-that-sank-australias-sovereignty-by-murray-horton/
World teeters on brink as Trump and cronies prepare to flood the zone with shit
By Giles ParkinsonNov 10, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/world-teeters-on-brink-as-trump-and-cronies-prepare-to-flood-the-zone-with-shit/
Are you OK? It seems an important question as the unhinged and unrestrained president Donald Trump is swept back into power and the world contemplates the implications for the climate, for civil discourse, for women, for minorities, for society as a whole, and for our children and their children.
We have, of course, been here before. This time round, however, the guard rails have been removed: Trump will be back in the White House and in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the judiciary and, thanks to fellow and like minded billionaires who own it or fund it, mainstream and social media. Only the filibuster stands in his way.
It’s a kick in the guts to those who care about the future. The implications weigh heavy on anyone minded to consider them: Trump is a climate denier who describes the science as a hoax and his vow to wind back policies and frack, frack, frack, will – according to the best estimates – add around four billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, when the opposite needs to happen.
That, of course, means that the small window to cap average global warming within the Paris climate target of 1.5°C is all but lost. But by how big a margin it will be missed will depend on the actions elsewhere in the world. That includes Australia but mostly it is China, whose role could get complicated with the threat of a tariff war.
Trump has been especially enabled by the likes of Tesla and Twitter/X boss Elon Musk, who used to say that his prime mission was to end the use of fossil fuels in the grid and transport with electric cars, storage and renewables.
Musk’s technology, the cars and the batteries in particular, have helped tip the balance towards a green energy transition. But he now appears more concerned by other ideological pursuits.
Bizarrely, Musk now dismisses the science – maybe if greenhouse emissions get close to 1,000 parts per million it might be hard to breathe, he has said. He is obsessed about getting to Mars, and is happy to enable and promote misogynists and conspiracy theorists on his social media platform. On earth, or at least in cyberspace and the Metaverse, Musk is, to borrow a phrase, flooding the zone with shit.
What does that mean for Australia?
The good news – and these things are comparative – is that at least in the short term, the green energy transition will continue apace.
While wind and solar stocks plunged in the US in anticipation of Trump’s fossil fuel fracking frenzy, and his planned dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act, the program in Australia accelerates, as we report here, with added urgency.
Australia is getting close to the half way mark of kicking fossil fuels out of the grid, and replacing them with wind, solar and storage – essential for any significant emissions cuts in the broader economy.
Some argue that the tipping point – aided by new technology, falling prices, better engineering, and deep pocketed investors – has already arrived.
But that won’t stop others from trying to throw a spanner in the nacelle, as it were, and Australia’s conservative Coalition – emboldened by the chutzpah of the Trump campaign and the backing of the Murdoch and Musk media machines – will continue with its campaign of mischief and misinformation.
What the Coalition and Peter Dutton have learned is that if you do flood the zone with shit – it’s the Steve Bannon mantra – then a lot will stick, particularly when you find ways of making people fearful.
So expect to hear a lot about immigration, transgender, women, elites and any other group that can easily be demonised in a tweet or an Instagram post.
The federal Coalition’s pursuit and promotion of nuclear power as a solution for Australia is about as nonsensical and incoherent as anything that Trump has ever proposed, but as the New York Times’ Seth Abramson notes in a depressing analysis, many of the public are too frivolous, selfish, self-interested, ignorant, or petty to care.
And, I would add, they are also too fearful, too impressionable, and too vulnerable to the machinations of billionaires who want to be trillionaires, and their supporting cast of psychopaths, to care.
Which brings it back to those who do care. The world has seen the likes of Trump, Abbott, Morrison before. The work has fallen to others to get on with the job – be it sub-national governments, investors, and campaigners. There is a lot at stake.
In Australia, that means individuals, too. Which is a good thing. The grid has changed so much, thanks largely to the massive popularity of rooftop solar, that consumers and communities here are in a position not enjoyed by others in the world: They are poised, quite literally, to take the power into their own hands, if only they were allowed.
Their ability to do so will grow with the rollout of EVs, vehicle to grid technology, heat pumps, and software that allows and promotes demand management.
The biggest impediment appears to be the system itself, and entrenched interests. Voters in the US and Australia are being hurt by changing economic circumstances and inflation. Trump managed to con the US public by pretending that he wasn’t part of the system, or the problem.
His attack on established and respected institutions is echoed in Australia by Dutton and co, who appear more concerned about protecting the vested and often venal interests of legacy industry – many now crouching behind the veil of net zero by 2050 that they know they can use as an excuse rather than a target.
It seems to be working. Polls put the Coalition at a 52-48 per cent advantage, just six months out from the federal poll. At least in Australia there is strength in minor parties, and their role has never been as crucial as it is now. The world is is in desperate need of grown-ups. Australia cannot afford to follow the American path.
So, when the rest of us are able to pick ourselves up from the floor, and check with others that they are OK, then it might be time to set about convincing doubters that the push to zero emissions offers a safe and more prosperous future, and the chance to be part of a community rather than oppressed by a system.
Sadly, it’s not yet apparent that enough in the green energy industry have learned how to do that, or even that they know that they should.
Good luck, take care, and don’t give up. We won’t.
Airstrip One: How Albanese has integrated Australia into Trump’s military machine
Thanks to the Albanese government, the new Trump administration will find Australia a well-established launch pad for any conflict with China.
Bernard Keane, Nov 11, 2024, https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/11/anthony-albanese-australia-us-military-integration-donald-trump/
The next Trump administration will arrive in power to learn that Australia is far more deeply enmeshed in in the US military and intelligence apparatus than in 2020, partly thanks to an eager Albanese government subordinating Australian sovereignty to Washington.
AUKUS is a Biden-era initiative that advocates worry Trump may look askance at, given the pressure it will place on US nuclear submarine production — although the fact that America and the UK can walk away whenever they like, and that Australia is handing $5 billion to each for the privilege of participating, should mitigate Trump’s hostility. That AUKUS will effectively place Australia’s submarine fleet — if it ever arrives — under US control in the 2040s and 2050s may be appealing, but that’s far beyond Trump’s short-term mindset.
But the bigger story of Australian sovereignty under the Albanese government isn’t AUKUS but the steady integration of Australia’s military systems into America’s, and Australia’s transformation into a launch pad for the deployment of American power. The Albanese government has:
- Facilitated “regular and longer visits of US [nuclear submarines] from 2023 to Australia, with a focus on HMAS Stirling. These visits would help build Australia’s capacity in preparation for Submarine Rotational Force-West, an important milestone for the AUKUS Optimal Pathway that would commence as early as 2027”. Submarine Rotational Force-West is the permanent operation of one British and four US nuclear submarines from Perth.
- Allowed US intelligence officials to be embedded in the Defence Intelligence Organisation, a “significant step” toward what Defence Minister (and, as he always insists on being called, Deputy Prime Minister) Richard Marles hailed as “seamless” intelligence ties between the US and Australia.
- Established sharing of satellite imagery “and analysis capability” between Geoscience Australia and the US government.
Established rotation of State Department officials through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “in the areas of technical security, cyber security, and threat analysis”.- Upgraded Top End RAAF airfields to accommodate more US military aircraft, with more upgrades planned, in work hailed by Stars and Stripes as reflecting how “Australians are alarmed at Chinese efforts to gain influence among their South Pacific neighbours”.
- Established facilities for “prepositioning of initial US Army equipment and materiel in Australia at Albury-Wodonga”.
- Continued the Morrison government’s support for the expansion of the Pine Gap surveillance facility, while it is being used, inter alia, to provide intelligence to the Israeli Defence Forces in their genocidal campaign against Palestinians.
- US Marine rotations through Darwin have also been used as “a hub in a lengthy kill web that could protect the region, should Australia face outside threats. ‘Every single day Darwin is becoming more of a hub for us, not just in Australia but through the island chain,’” one American officer says.
In one recent exercise, “Marines set up a bare bones air base on the York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia complete with a fires unit armed with anti-ship missiles and a sensing unit to run air defense … Marines also used their own and Australian aircraft, including C-130s, C-17s and Ospreys to establish an Expeditionary Advanced Base that set up an Osprey maintenance base to extend the aircrafts operations during military exercises. ‘These are real posture gains being made there that will be useful for us in conflict.’”
This demonstrates the validity of Paul Keating’s description of Australia under Albanese as becoming “a continental extension of American power akin to that which it enjoys in Hawaii, Alaska and more limitedly in places like Guam … the national administrator of what would be broadly viewed in Asia as a US protectorate”.
The difference now is that from January, this “continental extension” will be under the control not of a traditional centrist Democrat, but an unstable populist with a deep hostility to China and a stated determination to weaken the country he believes caused the COVID pandemic, as well as an outright hostility to international law and desire to unshackle Israel from any limitations on its mass slaughter of Palestinians. In the event Trump’s proposed trade war with China significantly increases military tensions, Australia will be Airstrip One for the deployment of American power.
Australia US Alliance: Is It Time to Rethink Our Loyalty?
November 10, 2024, by: The AIM Network, By Denis Hay
Australia US alliance has costs. Learn how this impacts Australians and how reallocated funds could benefit citizens.
Introduction
Australia and the United States have been strategic allies for over seventy years. This Australia US alliance, often celebrated with the phrase “old allies and true friends,” is rooted in shared history and mutual defence agreements like the ANZUS Treaty.
However, many Australians are now questioning if the costs of this alliance—both in terms of military and economic impact—outweigh the benefits. This article explores the consequences of Australia’s allegiance to the U.S., the human costs of U.S. interventions, and how Australia’s financial resources might better serve its citizens’ social well-being.
1. The Costly Legacy of the Australia-U.S. Alliance
– Historical Overview: Australia US alliance began formally with the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. Through wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Australia has stood beside the U.S., incurring both financial costs and human losses.
– Casualty Estimates: The human toll of this alliance is staggering. The wars led by the U.S. have resulted in estimated casualties of over 200,000 American troops, 60,000 Australian troops, and millions of civilians globally. For instance, the Iraq War alone caused around 500,000 civilian deaths and displaced over 3 million people.
– The Refugee Crisis: The consequence of U.S.-led wars has been a refugee crisis affecting countless lives. Countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have seen millions of citizens fleeing war zones, often with little support from Western nations. Australia’s involvement in these wars contributes to a moral responsibility for the refugee influx, yet the country struggles to support displaced persons adequately.
2. The Social Cost of Alliance-Bound Military Spending
– Military Expenditures at the Cost of Social Welfare: Australia’s defence budget has increased significantly, with estimates of $48.7 billion given in 2023. Much of this spending is tied to keeping military readiness to support the U.S. in conflicts. These funds could otherwise enhance healthcare, education, and housing for Australians.
Military funding without public transparency.
– Impact on Public Services: Redirecting even a part of the defence budget could fund initiatives like universal healthcare, improved mental health services, and housing for the homeless. For example, just 10% of the current defence budget could support building 10,000 public housing units annually or fund a significant expansion of mental health services for underserved communities.
– Consequences of Refugee and Displacement Crises: Australia’s participation in U.S.-led interventions indirectly contributes to refugee crises that strain social services and humanitarian aid. Public sentiment on immigration has also been affected, often creating divisive views within Australian society about who should be supported and who is viewed as a “burden.”
3. A Call for a More Independent and Socially Conscious Foreign Policy
Australia’s alliance with the United States has provided strategic support over the decades, yet many argue that it is time for Australia to pursue a foreign policy that is more reflective of its own interests, values, and the well-being of its citizens.
Despite growing public interest in a more independent, socially conscious approach, Australian governments have hesitated to diverge significantly from U.S.-aligned policies. This reluctance may stem from multiple factors:
1. Fear of Political and Economic Repercussions:
– Australian policymakers often cite strategic security concerns as a reason for adhering closely to U.S. foreign policy, fearing that any independence might jeopardize Australia’s access to American intelligence, technology, and defence resources.
– Economically, a close alliance with the U.S. bolsters trade relations and provides access to powerful American markets. For some politicians, the potential economic fallout of alienating a significant trading and security partner outweighs the call for a more independent stance.
2. Lack of Political Courage and Vision:
– Some critics argue that the Australian government lacks the courage to challenge established norms or take bold steps toward an independent foreign policy. This lack of vision may stem from a longstanding alignment with U.S. interests that has become entrenched in Australia’s political and diplomatic culture.
– Breaking away from such a powerful ally requires a willingness to redefine national priorities, a path that requires courage, strategic foresight, and often a willingness to face criticism from powerful interest groups invested in maintaining the alliance.
3. Disconnect from Public Opinion:
– Surveys show that Australians increasingly favour a more balanced, socially conscious approach to foreign policy, especially as they see the domestic impact of military spending and U.S.-influenced policies. However, successive Australian governments have often ignored this sentiment, raising questions about whether the government genuinely prioritizes the public’s voice in its decisions…………………………..
4. Influence of External Powers and Lobbying:
– Australian foreign policy decisions are also influenced by lobbying from powerful industries, including defence contractors and political think tanks with ties to the U.S. These entities often push for policies that favour a strong alliance with the U.S., as it aligns with their economic and strategic interests.
– The cumulative effect of these influences can stymie efforts for a more independent policy path, effectively sidelining the public’s desire for a foreign policy that prioritizes social well-being and peaceful diplomacy.
In summary, Australia’s reluctance to adopt a more independent, socially conscious foreign policy is a combination of economic dependency, political caution, and a systemic disconnect from the will of the people.
For Australia to shift toward a foreign policy that truly serves its citizens, it would require not only a realignment of political priorities but also a renewed commitment to placing the public’s interests and values at the heart of its foreign relations.
1. The Historical Basis of Australia-U.S. Relations and Its Human Cost……………………………………………….
2. Australia’s Position on U.S. Leaders and Policies
– Unquestioned Loyalty: Australian leaders often affirm support for U.S. presidents and foreign policies without critical evaluation. This approach reflects a hesitancy to challenge U.S. decisions even when they conflict with Australia’s best interests.
– Impact on Australian Sovereignty: The uncritical acceptance of Australia US alliance policies can undermine Australia’s autonomy. For example, Australia’s alignment with U.S. policies on China has strained trade relationships, affecting vital economic sectors like agriculture, tourism, and education. The result is a compromise of national interests to support a symbolic “alliance.”
3. U.S. Military Interventions, Global Casualties, and the Refugee Crisis
– Scope of U.S.-Led Wars: The U.S. has been involved in conflicts worldwide, from the Middle East to Latin America and beyond, often resulting in widespread devastation. These conflicts have had lasting impacts, including millions of civilian deaths and widespread destruction.
– The Refugee Crisis and Australia’s Responsibility: Australia’s support for U.S. interventions creates a moral obligation to help refugees from war-torn countries. However, current refugee policies fall short, leaving many displaced people without adequate support or protection. Accepting more refugees from conflict zones would reflect Australia’s commitment to international human rights and fulfill part of its alliance-driven responsibility.
4. Australia’s Role as a Supporting Partner and Its Consequences
– Participation in Conflicts and Reputational Impact: Australia’s involvement in U.S. wars affects its international reputation, often casting the country as a secondary player rather than an independent, neutral voice in global politics. This alignment can make Australia appear complicit in conflicts driven by U.S. interests, compromising its image as a peaceful nation.
– Economic and Social Impact on Australians: By aligning with U.S. defence priorities, Australia diverts significant public money to defence spending, reducing resources for vital services. Citizens bear the costs through reduced access to affordable healthcare, housing shortages, and an underfunded education system. The pressure to conform to U.S. policies, especially in the Indo-Pacific, risks escalating regional tensions that could directly affect Australians.
5. The Opportunity Cost: How Reallocating Military Spending Could Benefit Australians……………………………………………………………..
Rethinking Australia’s Foreign Policy Approach for the Future
As global dynamics shift, Australia faces a critical juncture in deciding how to position itself on the world stage. A key element of this decision lies in its relationship with China, a rapidly growing economic and political power in the Indo-Pacific region.
While the Australia US alliance has historically shaped much of Australia’s foreign policy, the rise of China presents an opportunity for Australia to pursue a balanced, independent approach that prioritizes regional stability and mutual benefit.
1. China’s Role as Australia’s Major Trading Partner:……………………………………….
2. Promoting Regional Stability and Security:
– As a dominant power in the Indo-Pacific, China’s influence on regional security is substantial. Building a constructive, diplomatic relationship with China could position Australia as a mediator and stabilizer within the region, promoting dialogue over conflict.
– With rising tensions between the U.S. and China, Australia has a unique opportunity to champion a foreign policy that values peace, cooperation, and shared interests, rather than one that escalates division. This approach would reduce the risk of Australia being drawn into potential conflicts that do not serve its national interests.
3. Economic and Diplomatic Benefits of Non-Alignment:………………………….
4. Preparing for a Multipolar World:
– The global power landscape is shifting from U.S.-led dominance to a multipolar world where countries like China, India, and emerging economies play a larger role. For Australia, recognizing and adapting to this reality is crucial for staying relevant and resilient in the international arena…………………………….
Conclusion
Australia US alliance has served strategic purposes in the past, but as global dynamics shift, it’s vital to reassess whether the benefits of this alliance outweigh the costs. The loss of lives, the displacement of millions, and the diversion of public money from critical social services highlight the urgent need for a foreign policy that prioritizes Australia’s long-term interests and humanitarian values.
By adopting a more independent stance, Australia could enhance the social well-being of its citizens and contribute to a more peaceful, stable global community. https://theaimn.com/australia-us-alliance-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-loyalty/
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
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
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.
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/
‘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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 