nuclear-news

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

Australia must lobby US for ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, says ex-minister Gareth Evans

 Former foreign minister says it is ‘sheer dumb luck’ that arms have not been used in the past 78 years and urges leadership on control measures

Daniel Hurst, Guardian, 1 Nov 23

Labor luminary and former foreign minister, Gareth Evans has urged Australia to lobby the US to promise “no first use” of nuclear weapons, warning that global arms control agreements “are now either dead or on life support”.

Evans says that in the wake of sealing the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal, the Albanese government should give “some comfort to ALP members and voters that we are really serious about nuclear arms control”.

Evans told Guardian Australia it was “sheer dumb luck” that the world had avoided a nuclear attack in the 78 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and “it is utterly wishful thinking to believe that this luck can continue in perpetuity”.

Evans joined arms control experts and former senior diplomats in urging the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to take “a leadership role in addressing the rising nuclear threats in our region”.

Australia should appoint “a high-level envoy to engage our regional partners on an agenda of nuclear confidence building and preventive diplomacy measures”, according to a letter from the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (APLN).

While the group’s letter to Albanese is not specific about policy measures, Evans offered his own view that Australia’s status as a close US ally “gives us a particularly significant potential role” in pushing to reduce nuclear risks.

“The most immediately useful step we could take would be to support the growing international movement for the universal adoption of No First Use doctrine by the nuclear-armed states,” Evans told Guardian Australia…………………………………….

In a stark warning about the security environment, Evans said the risk of nuclear weapons being used through human error, miscalculation or system error was “greater than ever, not least given new developments in AI and cyber-offence capability”.

“Nearly 13,000 nuclear warheads are still in existence, with a combined destructive capability of close to 100,000 Hiroshima- or Nagasaki-sized bombs, and stockpiles, especially in our own Indo-Pacific region … are now growing again,” he said.

“The taboo against their deliberate use is weakening, with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, talking up this prospect in language not heard since the height of the cold war.”

In addition to seeking universal support for “no first use”, Evans said other potential risk-reduction measures include cutting the number of weapons ready for immediate use……………………………………………….

The APLN letter gained support from high-powered experts including John Carlson, the former head of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, and Ramesh Thakur, a former UN assistant secretary general.

Other signatories included John Tilemann, a former diplomat and international civil servant with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Gary Quinlan, a former Australian ambassador to the UN.

The leader of the Greens in the Senate, Larissa Waters, backed the letter with the former Australian Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja and the former Labor minister for international development Melissa Parke.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/01/australia-must-lobby-us-for-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons-says-ex-minister-gareth-evans #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

November 3, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS nuclear submarine deal triggers accusations over cost and construction

SMH, By Daniel Keane 30 Oct 23

South Australia’s premier remains insistent that the nation’s future nuclear-powered submarines should be constructed in Adelaide, despite a prominent call for the vessels to instead be built by, and purchased from, another AUKUS nation in order to save taxpayers “billions and billions of dollars”.

Key points:

  • Alexander Downer has called for all of the nation’s future nuclear subs to be built overseas
  • But SA premier Peter Malinauskas says Australia should build them “for national security reasons”
  • Mr Downer also said the question of storage of AUKUS nuclear waste needs to be addressed

Former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer has described the AUKUS project’s $368 billion price tag as “eye-watering”, and said he expects a future federal government to abandon the local construction element of the deal.

“We’re just going to wreck Australia if we keep promising to spend money on any manner of projects and have no idea where the money is going to come from,” Mr Downer told the ABC on Sunday.

“I don’t think the existing federal parliament or the next one is going to make a decision on this, but I think down the years, in the end, the federal government will decide that this is just too expensive, and they will buy the submarines from overseas.

“I’d be almost certain of that.”

Responding to similar comments Mr Downer made in The Weekend Australian, SA premier Peter Malinauskas said it is vital that Australia develops the ability to build the vessels “for national security reasons”, but also because “neither the US nor the UK in the long term have the capacity” to construct Australia’s entire fleet.

“They are struggling to meet their own demand,” Mr Malinauskas said.

Under the current terms of the AUKUS pact, Australia will get three US-made Virginia-class submarines while it builds up to eight nuclear-powered submarines of its own.

Mr Malinauskas accused Mr Downer of “misunderstanding” the intentions and expected outcomes of AUKUS…………………………………………………………..

But Mr Downer has rejected the premier’s comments, and in turn accused Mr Malinauskas of failing to understand the economics of AUKUS.

“I have a challenge to the premier — to explain where all this money is going to come from, and why does the premier think it’s better we spend eye-watering amounts of money on building nuclear submarines in Adelaide rather than investing … in other parts of our economy?” Mr Downer said……………………

“Peter Malinauskas and [SA opposition leader] David Speirs will be well and truly retired by the time this project comes about.

“It’s easy for them to make any manner of promises about times in the future, which will be way beyond their political life span — we can all make promises about the Second Coming.”

Mr Downer also said the question of storage of nuclear waste from the subs had not been satisfactorily addressed.

“There’s some elements of the Labor Party who have reservations, or are opposed to, nuclear-powered submarines and any association with nuclear power, and so I part company with them on that,” he said.

“But you’re going to have to store the waste somewhere. I’m not sure where that will be stored.”  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-29/sa-premier-defends-aukus-after-alexander-downer-questions-cost/103036822

October 30, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) steps up drive to keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia

By Bevan Ramsden | 26 October 2023 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ipan-steps-up-drive-to-keep-us-military-expansion-out-of-australia,18020

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) has produced a petition opposing the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) which is enabling U.S. militarisation of Australia in preparation for the U.S. to support/launch war from the Australian continent against China.

The e-petition to Parliament is an instrument for peace calling for the termination of the FPA.

It can be signed HERE.

The devastation of war, currently in Ukraine and in Palestine, confronts us on TV on a daily basis. All peace-loving people cry out for a ceasefire on both war fronts to enable, hopefully under United Nations auspices, conferences of all affected parties to find solutions that meet the security needs of all parties and free non-combatants from the horrors of war.

But concern about these wars should not blind us to the preparations for war occurring on our own continent under the auspices of the United States and with the enthusiastic complicity of successive Australian governments.

When defence matters are discussed, much is made of the U.S.-Australia alliance. But when the U.S. militarisation of Australia is considered, the alliance pales into insignificance compared to the U.S.-Australia FPA. It emerged as a concept from former President Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” of the U.S. armed forces, in which he announced the stationing of U.S. marines in Darwin each year to train for war with our Defence Force.

The “Pivot” was a strategy designed to “contain” China and maintain U.S. hegemony in the Asia/Pacific area. President Obama’s concept was enthusiastically received by all politicians of both major parties.

Subsequently, the Gillard and Abbott Governments, in conjunction with their U.S. defence counterparts, produced a greatly expanded concept, the FPA, providing “an operational posture” for U.S. forces in Australia, a gateway for U.S. militarisation of Australia. It was signed by the Abbott Government and the United States Government in 2014.

The FPA:

  • facilitates the stationing in Darwin, for six months each year, of up to 2,500 U.S. Marines; they are trained and equipped for immediate deployment and while in Australia, train for war in exercises with the Australian Defence Force. They are not under the control of the Australian Government. They are under the control of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command;
  • facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s airfields and airport facilities for U.S. fighter planes and bombers including the stationing of up to six B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindall. B-52 bombers were used to devastate Vietnam in that war and some are capable of carrying nuclear weapons;
  • facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s seaports for U.S. naval vessels including their nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA;
  • facilitates the establishment of storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions under U.S. military control. This includes huge fuel storage facilities at East Arm, Darwin and logistics facilities for storage of equipment, munitions and spare parts at Bandiana in Victoria;
  • opened the door for the embedding of U.S. military intelligence operatives within the Australian defence intelligence organisation now called the Combined Intelligence Centre — Australia; and
  • under the FPA, a U.S. command centre has been established in Darwin to control U.S. aircraft operations and another command centre in Darwin to control U.S. marine operations.

In short, the U.S. could launch and control military operations from Australia.

I have stressed the words “unimpeded access” because they are the words used in the Agreement.

Article IV of the FPA states:

…United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.

Australia hereby grants to the United States operational control of Agreed Facilities and Areas…

Part 4 of Article VII states:

‘As mutually determined by the Parties, aircraft, vehicles, and vessels operated by or for United States Forces shall have access to aerial ports and seaports of Australia and other locations, for the delivery to, storage and maintenance in, and removal from the territory of Australia of United States Forces’ prepositioned materiel.’

Activities under Article IV include:

‘…training, transit, support, and related activities; refuelling of aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, and materiel; deploying forces and material; and such other activities as the Parties may agree.’

Summing up, the FPA, with the enthusiastic support of the Australian Government, is facilitating increased U.S. militarisation of Australia to support U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific from which it could launch or support a war against China. This has been done with the agreement of both major political parties.

The FPA lasts 25 years from the date of signing but has a clause facilitating termination if either party gives one year’s notice.

IPAN is campaigning to have this FPA terminated. This would be a strong step in the direction of keeping Australia out of another U.S. war. And this time, one which would have a catastrophic impact on the Australian people.

If you wish to join this campaign, IPAN has a parliamentary e-petition which is open until 15 November 2023 for signature and it can be accessed by using your mobile phone and this QR code. [on original] #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes

October 28, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

South Australia is leading the world on the integration of wind and solar.

 There is little doubt that South Australia is leading the world on the
integration of wind and solar. Now, it’s about to take an even bolder
leap into a deep green energy future through its hydrogen jobs plan.

The state has sourced more than 70 per cent of its electricity demand from wind
and solar over the past year, and when RenewEconomy interviewed state
energy minister Tom Koutsantonis on Sunday afternoon for its Energy
Insiders podcast, it was nearing the end of a 60-hour period where it
average more than 100 per cent wind and solar. Earlier that day, the state
had reached a stunning new peak of 264 per cent “potential” wind and
solar, the combination of renewable energy actually produced, and the
renewable energy curtailed by the lack of a market.

South Australia response to the this excess of green energy is to encourage even more, with
another bold step that it hopes will make it a global leader in green
hydrogen, just as it has done with renewables.

 Renew Economy 25th Oct 2023 #Australia #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

South Australia takes another bold leap into deep green energy future

October 27, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

USA and Australia oceans apart on nuclear-powered submarines

By Kym Bergmann, October 26, 2023  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/were-oceans-apart-on-nuclearpowered-subs/news-story/be5a4f72abb23e5e2a9bab18f68b1b71

Listening to the Australian government and the local media, one would be entitled to think that it’s now a simple question of when will we receive nuclear-powered submarines, not if.

However, this is not the perspective of various parties in the US, with even the basic enabling legislation stuck in the Senate since June.

Called drily the “May 2023 DOD Legislative Package Regarding Proposed Sale of Virginia-class Boats Under AUKUS Agreement”, its aim seems to have been widely misunderstood in Australia.

Assuming that it is passed at some stage, it does not guarantee that we will be sold anything – it puts in place various measures and milestones that define how the process needs to work. Ultimately, the sale will still depend on the attitude of a future secretary of the Navy, who must advise congress for final approval.

One of the first things the legislation will do is clear the way for our government to transfer $3.326bn to the Pentagon coffers, seemingly with no visibility on how the US will spend it. We know the precise amount because it appears in a small footnote in the Defence Department’s annual budget papers. A change in the law is necessary because this transfer is unprecedented in US history and there are no existing mechanisms that allow it to happen.

There is also no mechanism for the money to be returned if the sale of submarines does not happen, and everyone from Defence Minister Richard Marles downwards has been mute about why we are handing over such a huge amount of money – something apparently volunteered by Australian officials during early negotiations. The intent is supposedly to strengthen US industry so that it reaches a point where it is producing so many Virginia-class submarines that some will be available for export.

Even determining when that point will be reached is speculative – and the legislation is no help because amendments include statements such as Australia will receive two submarines within 15 years, or they will be available for export when the US is launching them at a rate of three per year. Commentators have spoken of the need to be building them at two, or 2½ a year. The current pattern is barely 1½.

Nuclear-powered submarines are one of the most complex things ever constructed by humans, with about five million discrete components in each one. An 8000-tonne Virginia-class boat – the weight of 20 A380 passenger jets – requires a massive supply chain. Trying to ramp up production is a huge undertaking, which might work – but it also might not.

According to US officials, an extra 100,000 skilled workers are going to be needed in the next decade to meet even the two-per-year target. This is because the highest priority for the US Navy is the new Columbia-class ballistic missile firing submarines under construction. In addition, the Virginia-class – the first of which was launched in 2003 – is proving to be more maintenance intensive than expected, with close to 40 per cent of the current fleet tied up because of worker and spare parts shortages.

Some of this is spelled out in a section rather ominously titled: Limitation on Transfer of Submarines to Australia pending certification on domestic production capacity.

The government has no idea what to do, only a hope that it will all work out at a point in the distant future, preferably in a galaxy far away

The legislation also requires reporting requirements that appear incompatible with how our secretive Defence Department does things, with the connivance of the government. It says that within 90 days of passage, the Secretary of Defense – currently Lloyd Austin – must report to Congress on the cost, schedule, milestones and funding requirements involved in the sale of a Virginia-class submarine. This needs to be done in a way that will not adversely affect the capabilities of the USN. Since the US has a level of transparency we can only dream of, there are numerous other reporting requirements. One of these states: “A description of progress by the Government of Australia in building a new submarine facility to support the basing and disposition of a nuclear-attack submarine on the east coast of Australia.”

As Richard Marles has ruled out making a decision on the location of the base until next decade – after all, no one wants to live adjacent to a nuclear target with a consequent fall in house prices – it seems we will be in early breach of one of the conditions.

Another is that we will need to show that plans for other Australian military acquisitions will not be distorted – in other words the US is expecting to see evidence of a major increase in Defence spending, not just a vague promise.

If not before, this is likely to come to a head when the US asks for detailed plans for how we dispose locally of the highly radioactive SG9 reactors containing bomb grade material – U235 has a half-life of 704 million years – on Australian soil. At the moment, the government has no idea what to do, only a hope that it will all work out at a point in the distant future, preferably in a galaxy far away. Why we agreed to this provision when the US already has a system in place for decommissioning their own submarines is unknown.

In related news, a team in the UK led by BAE Systems has been awarded a $7.5bn contract for early work on the future AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine, with construction starting in the late 2030s.

This does not seem to involve Australia, indicating that we will either have to take whatever the British decide to sell us, or our specific modifications – such as for US weapons – will have to be made at a later point, increasing cost and risk. #Australia #auspol #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

 

October 26, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Congress calls for third US nuclear submarine yard to meet American and AUKUS obligations


Defense Connecg, 20 OCTOBER 2023, By: Stephen Kuper

“………………………………….. the US Navy and its supporting industrial architecture, once the unassailable leader and security guarantor for much of the world and the global economy, is now a shadow of its former might.

This has left the US Navy and its global partners, including the Royal Australian Navy, to face an increasingly uphill battle to field a range of next-generation capabilities ranging from hypersonic weapons, through to advanced surface and submarine capabilities.

…………………..In response to these mounting concerns, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States released an updated final report, titled, America’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, detailing the make-up of America’s critical strategic capabilities, namely the nuclear submarine fleet.

A third yard is critical to meet American and AUKUS obligations

Of particular importance for Australia is what is by now the well-documented lack of capacity in the existing US submarine construction yards to meet the stated minimum requirements identified by the US Navy.

The dual demands of replacing the remaining Los Angeles Class attack submarines and the Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines has already stretched the US defence industrial base to capacity, prior to the added layer of complexity required to support the trilateral AUKUS agreement.

……..The commission report suggests that the Pentagon, “increase shipbuilding capacity, by working with industry to establish or renovate a third shipyard dedicated to production of nuclear-powered vessels, with particular emphasis on nuclear-powered submarines”.

However, given the immense cost required to bring a third yard from either a green field or brown field site, government spending would be required the Pentagon has been told, this is particularly important when you account for the maintenance and sustainment requirements of nuclear-powered submarines on top of the construction phase.

Highlighting just how monumental this task is, the report states, “In the sea leg, the Navy is scheduled to construct one Columbia Class submarine per year and sustain the Ohio Class in parallel relying on the same infrastructure for both (manufacturing facilities, dry docks, etc). Additionally, this same workforce and industrial base also support Virginia Class submarine production.”

Such a balance isn’t without trade offs, with the Pentagon warning that, “As a result, the Navy must consider schedule trade offs between the two classes of submarines. The [Office of Management and Budget] as well as the Commission are skeptical that the current infrastructure can simultaneously support conventional and nuclear sustainment, modernisation, and construction as scheduled. The AUKUS agreement may place further stress on this capacity.”

………………………………………………………  the US Navy and its allies, including Australia, are facing stagnating or declining defence budgets (in real terms) as a result of increasingly costly technology-heavy platforms, coupled with continuing societal atomisation and disconnection from the principles of liberal democracy,…………………………………………………………..

Final thoughts

Importantly, in this era of renewed competition between autarchy and democracy, this is an uncomfortable conversation that needs to be had in the open with the Australian people, as ultimately, they will be called upon to help implement it, to consent to the direction, and to defend it should diplomacy fail……….  https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/industry/12977-congress-calls-for-third-us-nuclear-submarine-yard

October 24, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Antipodean Nuclear Free Zones: Testing Times for Antarctica and the South Pacific

October 19, 2023  https://nonproliferation.org/antipodean-nuclear-free-zones-testing-times-for-antarctica-and-the-south-pacific/

Australia and New Zealand have historically promoted strong anti-nuclear policies at both a global, regional, and sub-regional level. They joined with the United States and the other original parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty to make Antarctica nuclear free.

Both countries also took France to the International Court of Justice in 1973 in order to bring about a halt to France’s nuclear testing program in the South Pacific, and actively promoted the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone in the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga.

However, in 2021 Australia along with the UK and US announced the AUKUS initiative, which in March 2023 was finalized in San Diego. Australia will eventually acquire AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s.

This has placed a spotlight on Australia’s anti-nuclear credentials and its international law commitments and has attracted criticism from within the Asia Pacific, including from New Zealand, Pacific island states, and China. This seminar considers these issues through the lens of international law.

VIDEO – on original

Chapters:
00:00:00 Moderator: Avner Cohen, Professor, Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
00:01:44 Speaker: Donald R. Rothwell, Professor of International Law, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
00:57:07 Q&A #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 22, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia’s nuclear submarine plans in disarray as Albanese visits USA in the midst of a Republican Congressmen’s brawl

Congressional brawl threatens to overshadow Anthony Albanese’s US trip

The Age David Crowe. October 20, 2023 

A political brawl in the United States is hurting Australian plans to persuade legislators to support the AUKUS pact on nuclear-powered submarines by casting doubt over whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be able to meet senior Congressional leaders next week.

Albanese is due to fly to Washington DC on Sunday to hold talks with US President Joe Biden on the alliance and broader security issues as well as attending a state dinner at the White House on Wednesday night, the first for an Australian leader in four years.

The agenda for the state visit includes stronger cooperation on climate change, critical mineral supplies as well as the sharing of nuclear secrets for the AUKUS plan, which needs Congress to approve changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, to allow the export of US knowledge and technology.

But the upheaval in the US capital, with the Republicans in disarray over whether Jim Jordan of Ohio should become Speaker of the House of Representatives, means there is no authority to approve an address to Congress and limited time for Albanese to meet top leaders…………..

Albanese is seeking meetings with Congressional leaders and the Australian ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is planning a formal opening of the new embassy on Scott Circle, with guests including political and corporate leaders, and a business delegation from Australia.

While former prime minister John Howard addressed a joint sitting of Congress in 2005 and Julia Gillard did the same in 2011, a similar event appears unlikely for Albanese given the challenges with the Republican leadership…………………………………………………………………………..

Albanese is also due to meet Biden in the Oval Office and join the president in a meeting with cabinet secretaries at the White House, as well as meeting Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the State Department.  https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/congressional-brawl-threatens-to-overshadow-anthony-albanese-s-us-trip-20231020-p5eds1.html

#nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes #auspol


—

October 21, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Seventy years on, Indigenous victims of UK’s nuclear tests in South Australia still await justice

Rudi Maxwell Oct 14 2023  https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/indigenous-news/2023/10/14/indigenous-victims-sa-nuke-tests/

Seventy years ago Yami Lester was playing outside with his friends at Wallatinna Station in remote South Australia when the ground shook beneath their little feet.

Then a strange black mist quietly rolled in.

On that day, October 15, 1953, the British government conducted its first nuclear test on the Australian mainland, at Emu Field, 170km from Wallatinna.

Mr Lester, a Yankunytjatjara man, was blinded by the fallout.

Before he died in 2017, he shared his memories of the explosion with ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons.

“It wasn’t long after that a black smoke came through, a strange black smoke, it was shiny and oily,” he said.

“A few hours later we all got crook, every one of us.

“We were all vomiting; we had diarrhoea, skin rashes and sore eyes. I had really sore eyes, they were so sore I couldn’t open them for two or three weeks.

“Some of the older people, they died.”

Between 1952 and 1963, the British government, with the active participation of the Australian government, conducted 12 major nuclear test explosions and up to 600 ‘minor’ trials in remote South Australia and off the coast of Western Australia.

The ‘minor trials’ dispersed 24.4 kg of plutonium in 50,000 fragments, 101kg of beryllium and 8 tonnes of uranium.

Radioactive contamination from the tests was detected across much of the continent. For decades the authorities denied, ignored and covered up the consequences.

Legacy of trauma

Australia held a royal commission into the tests, which handed down its final report in 1985. In the UK, former service personnel are still fighting with the government for access to records.
Karina Lester says little was done to protect Aboriginal communities during nuclear tests, the ones at Emu Field were known as Totem 1 and Totem 2.

Little was done to protect the 16,000-or-so test-site workers, and even less to protect nearby Aboriginal communities, as Karina Lester, Yami’s daughter, explained.

“The country is still wearing the scars and the people are still wearing those scars as well,” Ms Lester told AAP.

“One of the things I’ve been concerned about as a second generation survivor is that there has been no clean-up at Emu Field in 70 years, so we still don’t know if it’s safe for us to hunt and gather and collect food on or to even visit.

“And so it’s a difficult time for the family but also a time for us to remember and remind our fellow Australians of exactly what happened 70 years ago at Totem 1 and Totem 2 at Emu Field.”

October 17, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

‘Cottage industry’: Gurus say nuclear no match for solar energy

Hans van Leeuwen  https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/cottage-industry-gurus-say-nuclear-no-match-for-solar-energy-20231013-p5ebxp

Hans van Leeuwen covers British and European politics, economics and business from London. He has worked as a reporter, editor and policy adviser in Sydney, Canberra, Hanoi and London. Connect with Hans on Twitter. Email Hans at hans.vanleeuwen@afr.com

London | The debate on nuclear power is a distraction from solar, which is about to tip into exponential growth that will sweep aside all other energy sources, say Australia’s much-garlanded pair of leading solar inventors.

Andrew Blakers and Martin Green, often dubbed the “fathers of photovoltaics”, described nuclear energy as “a cottage industry”, with no chance of reaching economies of scale in any useful timeframe.

Solar, though, “is going to take over energy it is in a way that will be utterly astonishing for most people”, Professor Blakers said.

“It is going to do it as fast as we went from film photography to digital photography. In the space of 20 years, basically we’re going to flip from solar being a few per cent to solar being everything but a few per cent. It really is the fastest energy change in all of history by a large margin,” he said.

The two men were in London to collect the latest in a string of prizes for their work on PERC solar photovoltaic technology, which has brought down the cost of solar panels by 80 per cent in the past decade.

At Buckingham Palace on Thursday (Friday AEDT), the King awarded them and their colleagues Aihua Wang and Jianhua Zhao with the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering.

Professor Green described nuclear as “pie in the sky” – including the small modular reactor technologies that have enthused the British government and the opposition in Australia as countries race to transition to green energy.

“They are going to have a few prototypes up by 2030, but it really needs the economy of volume to get the prices down to where they’re projecting,” he said. “So you need to be selling hundreds of these things, not just a few sample ones.”

He also said that the history of power generation had been about reducing costs by making things bigger. “It’s going against historical trend, I think, imagining that you can do things cheaply by making a lot of [smaller ones].”

Professor Blakers said nuclear was simply not in the net-zero race. “This year, it looks like the world will do about 500 gigawatts of solar and wind – maybe 400 gigawatts of solar, 100 gigawatts of wind. Hydro will do about 20 gigawatts, nuclear will do approximately one, gas and coal maybe 50,” he said.

“Solar has been growing at 20 per cent a year for a long time. If it continues to grow at this level, we will completely decarbonise the world by the early 2040s. This is how fast it’s happening. It’s so cheap compared with anything else.”

Nuclear, meanwhile, had not increased its capacity in the past 13 years, he said, adding no more than a gigawatt a year.

“You cannot grow an industry from one to multi-thousand gigawatts, which is what you’d need per year, in any reasonable timeframe. It’s impossible unless you put it on a war footing,” he said.

“You just don’t have enough engineers, scientists, raw materials, the factories, the factories to build the factories, the factories to build the factories to build the factories – it just doesn’t happen.”

Grids: the big hurdle

Both men were convinced that battery technologies and costs would continue to fall, driving increasingly rapid growth. The one big obstacle in Australia was transmission.

“Basically, you need a lot of new transmission to bring the new solar and wind into cities. And we’re not building it,” Professor Blakers said.

“Transmission only becomes important once you get up to 30, 40 per cent solar-wind. We’re currently 33 per cent solar-wind, and we will be 75 per cent by 2030. We don’t have a transmission problem yet. But in two years’ time, we’ll have a major one, and everyone can see that.”

He said initiatives to increase compensation to land owners should overcome the remaining community resistance.

Professor Green said the growth of solar energy use would not unseat China’s dominance of the supply chain for solar panels.

“Solar is basically going to demolish the market for coal and gas. And the geopolitical question is whether India, Europe and the US would tolerate having 80 or 90 per cent of the global solar industry coming out of China,” he said.

“It’s very hard to see other countries competing with China. The momentum they’ve got.”

He said India might become a major manufacturer, but its industry’s development would not be as co-ordinated and co-operative as China’s had been.

China, though, would have to address the demand of its customers for higher environmental and social standards – creating an opportunity for Australia to become a player in providing green-friendly metallurgical-grade silicon. #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 15, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

Australia might be better off to cancel the nuclear submarine plan

How many nuclear-powered submarines for Australia?

The Strategist, 12 Oct 2023|Peter Briggs

“………………………………………………………………………………..It takes three to four submarines to guarantee having one available for deployment. The ‘rule of three’ was validated by the Coles review, but that doesn’t include any spare capacity to cope with unexpected defects…………………………………………

Australia is planning on a three-year interval between delivery of submarines, driven by the time it will take to generate a crew from our small submarine personnel base and limited sea training capacity in operational Collins-class and US and UK submarines.

 Construction time doesn’t determine the drumbeat for delivery; rather, construction starts in sufficient time to achieve the delivery drumbeat.

Three years is a slow drumbeat industrially. Shorter would be more efficient but is currently not feasible because of personnel limitations. The personnel training limitation should ease once Australia has at least six SSNs at sea. The drumbeat could then be shortened. A slow drumbeat is more expensive due to idle production but is also likely to contribute to a loss of skilled workers; witness the UK’s experience at Barrow in Furness because of the slow Astute drumbeat.

A construction program building eight submarines at a three-year drumbeat would take 21 years. Submarines typically have a hull life of 25–30 years. Thus, this production line would have nothing to build for four to nine years, and would then be then back into stop–start shipbuilding.

A force of 10 SSNs at a three-year drumbeat with a planned 27-year life is the minimum to provide a continuous-build program, avoiding the stop–start situation. A force of 12 could achieve a shorter drumbeat in the later stages when the personnel restrictions are not so severe.

Decisions on the final size of the force must be made now, at the program’s inception. They drive industrial issues such as the size of facilities, production-line technology, the supply chains supporting the force and the ordering of long lead items such as the reactor. The decision cannot responsibly be left for a future government.

My study of British, French and US submarine-crewing policies, summarised in my 2018 ASPI report, concluded that a force of 10 SSNs with 10 crews was essential to generate the minimum critical mass of experienced personnel. A smaller force will not generate sufficient highly experienced personnel to oversee the safe technical and operational aspects of the program. That calculation assumed one base and one submarine squadron. Two-ocean basing with an additional 200 highly experienced squadron staff, a key link in the operational and safety chain, would require at least 12 SSNs.

Britain’s Royal Navy has six or seven SSNs and four SSBNs operating from one base in a single squadron. Its personnel situation is dire. High wastage rates and shortfalls in many critical categories have reportedly necessitated drafting non-volunteers to submarine training and cannibalising parts and crew to get even one submarine to sea. At times, the RN is unable to achieve even one. Is that where Australia is heading?

The issues are undoubtedly more complex than simply the size of the force, but it reinforces the point that a force of eight SSNs requiring six to seven crews is below critical mass, vulnerable to personnel shortfalls, will struggle to sustain two SSNs deployed, and won’t be able to sustain two-ocean basing.

Even more problematic is whether Australia can achieve an operational, sustainable and deployable SSN capability from eight boats made up of a mix of Virginia and AUKUS designs. The mix of classes adds to the complexity, cost and risk because it entails two supply chains and differing major onboard equipment, spares, and training systems and simulators.

Australia requires at least 12 SSNs to sustain two-ocean basing with two deployable on each coast in the good times. A force of 18—nine on each coast—would be more resilient, reliably providing two deployable SSNs, with three available in the good times.

Eight is plainly insufficient on all counts.

Leaving the decision for a later government will mean greater expense and increase the risk that the program doesn’t produce the needed strategic capability, while stripping funds from other key defence capabilities. A lack of decision, along with Australia’s failure to join the AUKUS SSN initial design effort, indicates inadequate commitment.

A ‘damn the torpedoes’ transition to SSNs could leave us with no submarine capability.

If Australia is not prepared to, or cannot, invest the resources to achieve a viable SSN force, we are better off not continuing down this path.

AUTHOR

Peter Briggs is a retired submarine specialist and a past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia.  https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how-many-nuclear-powered-submarines-for-australia/ #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 15, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australian government funds pro nuclear propaganda in schools – (even making it “fun”)

Education project focused on engaging next-generation nuclear science professionals in Australia and Japan.

ANSTO 11th October 2023 by ANSTO Staff

ANSTO has recently concluded up a successful cross-cultural nuclear science education project between Australia and Japan.

In collaboration with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and the University of Tokyo, the project brought together 200 university students, 180 secondary school students and 40 schoolteachers across the two countries.

Participants learned about the history, cultural perspectives, career opportunities and applications of nuclear science in Australia and Japan in interactive presentations, demonstrations and discussions.

Engaging next-generation nuclear science professionals in Australia and Japan was funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s 2022-23 Australia-Japan Foundation grant.

Dr Bridget Murphy, Education Manager (Secondary) at the Discovery Centre, was the ANSTO lead on the project.

“University students from both Australia and Japan were very interested in future career opportunities in nuclear science. They also had a broad range of questions about communicating science to the public effectively, radiation safety, the use of nuclear energy in combating climate change, and international collaboration in nuclear,” Dr Murphy said………….

Teachers from both Australia and Japan valued a cross-cultural perspective on the methods for teaching this subject in the classroom, using videos, hands-on and data-based approaches to instruction in nuclear science. 

Professor Takeshi Iimoto of the University of Tokyo emphasised the role of project-based learning and suggested that even humour can make nuclear more understandable for school students.

ANSTO is pleased to continue professional development with teachers in Asia, building on past experience working with teachers internationally through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)……….  https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/education-project-focused-on-engaging-next-generation-nuclear-science-professionals-australia #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants #Australia

October 13, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Education | Leave a comment

The case of Yaroslav Hunka, and its echoes in Australia’s history

Jayne Persian 9 Oct 23  https://overland.org.au/2023/10/the-case-of-yaroslav-hunka-and-its-echoes-in-australias-history/?fbclid=IwAR3fq-DqIxk7y61nKGzy77tlYkYp9vU9JaywMHQdzsQEcC6nrbU5dzrIrFk

Dr Jayne Persian is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland and the author of Fascists in Exile: Post-War Displaced Persons in Australia, forthcoming with Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right.

On 22 September, during a visit to the Canadian Parliament by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Speaker Anthony Rota publicly introduced ninety-eight-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a constituent ‘who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians’ as part of the First Ukrainian Division during the Second World War. He was ‘a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service.’ Hunka received a standing ovation from all present.

This scene was reported two days later by an antifascist site on Twitter, who pointed out that the First Ukrainian Division was also known as the Waffen-SS Galizien Division. Canadian academic Ivan Katchanovski linked to a veterans’ webpage in which Hunka wrote that he had been a volunteer recruit to the Galizien Division in 1943. Hunka had also uploaded photographs showing him in uniform with the ‘boys’.

The Kremlin immediately reacted, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov arguing that ‘such sloppiness of memory is outrageous.’ Opposition Leader, Pierre Poilevre, described this incident as the worst diplomatic embarrassment in Canada’s history. Rota resigned, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was forced to apologise unreservedly.

These embarrassing episodes continue to occur in countries that resettled the post-war displaced persons of Central and Eastern Europe. This mass of around one million people had refused to return to homes that were under Soviet control. As well as concentration camp inmates and forced labourers, these political refugees included soldiers who had fought in German military units, as well as civilian collaborators. Security screening was difficult and there was also some sympathy from the Allied military authorities for veterans on the losing side. Whole cohorts were resettled in Britain, including 8,000 Ukrainian members of the Waffen-SS Galizien Division. Ukrainian nationalist declarations were also treated seriously. While all Ukrainian displaced persons held either Polish or Soviet Union citizenship, they were treated as a separate group quite quickly.

Many of these men should have been charged with war crimes. The German-led Holocaust had relied on the firepower and administrative skill of non-German Central and Eastern Europeans, including Ukrainians. Ukrainian anti-Soviet and anti-Polish nationalists were initially involved in individual and group paramilitary acts, including voluntary local pogroms and/or acts of murder before or beside the German occupation. One of the pogroms, which involved the massacre of 12,000 Jews, was named Aktion Petliura after the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura, who had been assassinated by a Ukrainian Jew (this assassination itself framed as retaliation for earlier pogroms) in 1926.

After the initial wave of pogroms, Ukrainians became progressively involved with an institutionalised German genocidal machinery. Ukrainians joined a Ukrainian Auxiliary Police Force (Schutzmannschaft), the German security police (Sicherheitspolizei, SiPo) and the intelligence agency (Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS, SD). Others hunted Jews in their forest warden jobs. Local policemen were empowered to kill anyone the Germans defined as enemies of the state, including Jews; indeed, the Germans relied on the dramatically increased numbers of local forces to do the dirty work of the Holocaust, including the shooting of children. Between 1941 and 1944, 1.6 million Jews had been murdered in Ukraine. In 1943, 100,000 of these men volunteered to join the Waffen-SS Galizien Division. In this capacity, they have been accused of murdering Polish civilians.

The United Nations’ International Refugee Organisation resettled the displaced persons in the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The western world was eager to use the labour of these healthy, white, and stridently anti-communistic young men. Australia resettled 170,700 displaced persons including Poles, ‘Balts’ (Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians), Yugoslavs, Ukrainians and Hungarians. There was immediate criticism by Jewish groups and sections of the press that the new migrants included war criminals but these were roundly dismissed as Soviet communist propaganda.

Decades later, all four of the main resettlement countries instituted judicial processes against the alleged perpetrators of the Holocaust who were now resident in their countries. In Australia, such men were guaranteed a fair criminal trial: the evidence, for crimes that occurred over forty-five years before, had to include documentary and material evidence and, ideally, eyewitnesses to the alleged individual perpetrator carrying out a war crime. Of course, the nature of the Holocaust was such that very few eyewitnesses to genocide survived in order to testify against individual killers.

After a flawed investigative process, only three men were charged. All three were Ukrainians who had resettled in Adelaide. Ukrainian auxiliary policeman Mikolay Berezowsky was accused of being party to a mass murder of 102 Jewish villagers. Henry Wagner, an ethnic German liaison officer between the German and Ukranian auxiliary police force, was charged with being party to two mass murders, including the shooting of nineteen part-Jewish children. Forest warden Ivan Polyukhovich was accused of hunting and killing Jews under the German occupation, and in taking part in a mass shooting. However, the evidence bar was so high that there were no convictions.

Immediately after the unsuccessful war crimes trials, Ukrainians again attracted attention with an award-winning novel by Helen Demidenko, purporting to be written by a Ukrainian-Australian and based on the life story a member of that community. To the great embarrassment of the Australian literati, Demidenko was soon unmasked as English-Australian Helen Darville, who had attended the Polyukhovich trial with a young man who was noticed to be repeatedly muttering ‘Jews’.

Many responses to Ivan Katchanovski’s tweets shedding light on this unsavoury history — one that Canada and Australia share — claimed that this was not the time to be critiquing Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalists. Ukraine was, of course, invaded by Russia in 2022 and that war is ongoing. Most in the West sympathise with, and support, Ukraine’s fight. And Russia has attempted to smear all Ukrainians with accusations of Nazism, which is simply not true. Dismissing inconvenient histories and the problematic pasts of individual migrants to both Canada and Australia, however, is not useful.

The complicity of the West in assisting perpetrators to escape justice should be acknowledged, and we must be wary of any attempt to normalise fascist views and actions in the public sphere. #Ukraine

October 12, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, history | Leave a comment

Is #nuclear energy feasible in Australia (and how much would it cost)?

What problem is nuclear trying to provide a solution for, asks Ernst & Young climate change and sustainability partner Emma Herd. “If it’s cost of living, it’s expensive. If there are challenges with social licence for renewables then nuclear has got 10 times more social licence problems. If it is the need to rapidly deploy low-emissions energy technology to replace coal then nuclear takes a long time to get approval for, let alone to build, let alone to get up and operating. If it’s the need for rapid decarbonisation, again, it’s too slow.”

Debate has erupted over nuclear energy’s role in Australia’s shift from fossil fuels. Could it work? And why is it so controversial?

SMH, By Mike Foley, OCTOBER 7, 2023

Australia is in the middle of an unprecedented energy revolution, switching from the fossil fuel-powered electricity grid that’s been the bedrock of the nation’s economy for decades to clean energy, through a rush of renewables as wind and solar farms spring up across the country.

The shift is being driven by Australia’s commitment to help tackle climate change by cutting damaging greenhouse emissions.

But a fiery political debate has erupted over the future of Australia’s energy supply in recent months, with federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding the Albanese government remove the nation’s longstanding ban and deploy what he claims is clean, cheap and reliable nuclear power…………..

What would be the costs? And how does nuclear power work?

………………………………………………………………………… This atomic fission also creates zero greenhouse gases, [ed. note: in the reactor operation, but not in the entire fuel cycle] which is a key benefit cited by nuclear energy advocates, but its opponents point to the dangers associated with storing the radioactive waste and the potential for spent fuel from nuclear reactors to be used to make nuclear weapons.

Past accidents have undermined public confidence……………………………..

…………………………………. In Australia, a national ban on nuclear energy was put in place by the Howard government in 1999, after horse-trading with the Australian Democrats over the government’s signature green reform, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which stated that the relevant minister could not approve a nuclear power plant.

Seven years later, the Howard government asked Telstra chief executive and trained nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski to investigate the merits of nuclear power in Australia. That report delivered a hammer blow to the industry. Switkowski found that nuclear power could compete economically with coal power only if a politically contentious carbon tax was imposed.

In 2019, Switkowski also told a parliamentary inquiry there was little prospect for Australia to develop a nuclear energy industry because the “window for large gigawatts to go in nuclear generators has now closed for Australia”. He said a nuclear industry would take too long to establish and be too costly to build compared to alternative infrastructure. He also said it was unlikely the industry could establish enough support to gain a social licence to operate.

“Given that the investment in a power station, particularly a big one, would begin at $US10 billion and go up from there, and it would take around 15 years to make it work, you can’t progress without strong community support and bipartisanship at the federal level, and there is not too much evidence of that,” he said.

But now the federal Coalition is calling for the nuclear energy ban to be abolished.

……………………………. Nuclear energy proponents argue nuclear should replace coal. Those advocates include the Minerals Council, prominent Nationals including leader David Littleproud and former leader Barnaby Joyce, and some Liberal MPs including Dutton and his climate change and energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien.

……………………………….Renewable energy advocates point out that investors are flocking to large-scale wind and solar projects, which are pumping cheaper energy into the grid and outcompeting coal. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), which manages the electricity grid, says a grid based on renewables will be just as reliable as a system centred on baseload power.

Could we get a nuclear industry happening in time?

Speed is of the essence, say climate scientists. Global emissions are on track to exceed the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees, a level that would avoid the worst damages from climate change. While renewables are available now, and cheaply, it would likely take decades to establish a nuclear energy industry in Australia.

Australia’s former chief scientist, Alan Finkel, told this masthead in August it was highly unlikely Australia could open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s, pointing out the autocratic United Arab Emirates took more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plan using established technology.

What problem is nuclear trying to provide a solution for, asks Ernst & Young climate change and sustainability partner Emma Herd. “If it’s cost of living, it’s expensive. If there are challenges with social licence for renewables then nuclear has got 10 times more social licence problems. If it is the need to rapidly deploy low-emissions energy technology to replace coal then nuclear takes a long time to get approval for, let alone to build, let alone to get up and operating. If it’s the need for rapid decarbonisation, again, it’s too slow.”

Herd says it would take decades of investment in enabling services for the nuclear energy value chain before a new plant could be built, on top of the likely 20 years needed to plan, gain approval for and build a plant.

“Nuclear has got not just a 20-year timeframe to build something, it’s actually probably more a 30- to 50-year timeframe to build an industry,” she says. This includes either educating or importing a generation of nuclear experts to design and operate facilities, capability to construct the complex facilities, creating a bureaucracy to administer the industry and writing the laws to govern it.

Could nuclear energy solve the power line ‘problem’?

A key sticking point in the Opposition’s criticism of renewable energy is the Albanese government’s push to build some 10,000 kilometres of power lines to link the plethora of renewable energy projects springing up across the country with major cities. AEMO has forecast that could cost around $13 billion by 2030. Nuclear energy advocates say those costs could be avoided by building nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants, where existing transmission lines converge.

In fact, even if there were no renewable energy expansion, expensive new transmission lines are still needed to upgrade the grid and increase its capacity in line with population growth, but they have been delayed. Energy experts are increasingly worried that time is running out, risking Australia’s ability to compensate for the looming closures of coal-fired power plants.

A major factor in the delays is community backlash against transmission lines, with farmers denying land access to private companies. Littleproud is leading the charge against the renewable energy rollout and backing farm groups in their protest. Backed by Dutton, he has accused the government of running a “reckless race” to renewables and is calling for a halt to privately run transmission projects, for a Senate inquiry or summit into renewable energy and for a national discussion on removing Australia’s moratorium on nuclear power.

Isn’t there a new type of nuclear technology now?

With Dutton heading the push for a plan to replace Australia’s existing fleet of coal plants with nuclear, Littleproud has declared he is open to having a plant in his Queensland electorate. The Coalition says Australia could deploy the next-generation of nuclear technology called small modular reactors, which are based on the energy units in nuclear submarines.

Finkel has said that, from a “purely engineering” perspective, nuclear technology is appealing, with zero emissions, a continuous supply of baseload power and a small mining footprint for fuel. But he has said that small modular reactors are not currently viable technology. “There’s no operating small modular reactor in Canada, America or the UK, or any country in Europe.”

Finkel noted that private company Nuscale is aiming to commission 12 small modular reactors starting from 2029, but he said it would take at least a decade to follow suit in Australia.

Is nuclear cheaper?

A joint study by the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCost report, calculated the future cost of energy generation for a range of technologies. It found that solar and wind energy generation would cost between $60 and $100 per megawatt hour by 2030, including back-up power from either batteries, pumped hydro or gas plants. (This figure also includes CSIRO and AEMO-termed “sunk costs” of new transmission lines.)

GenCost forecast that one megawatt hour of power from a small modular reactor in 2030 would cost between $200 and $350 per megawatt hour.

Another energy advisory, Lazard from the US, calculated the levelised cost of nuclear and renewables – which means the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It found that one megawatt hour from solar power, including back-up storage, costs between $72 to $160 per megawatt hour, while a traditional nuclear plant costs from $220 to $347.

Why is the politics of nuclear toxic?

Even if the Albanese government wanted to open a debate over the future of nuclear power in Australia, the party’s official policy platform that is formed by rank and file members states Labor will “prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia”.

While it’s not impossible for politicians to ignore the policy platform, it is extremely challenging.

In any case, the government has come out swinging against the opposition’s call for nuclear power in Australia. Bowen……………………. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/is-nuclear-energy-feasible-in-australia-and-how-much-would-it-cost-20231004-p5e9qc.html

October 8, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Defence Minister slammed for exorbitant secret travel costs for nuclear submarine deal

Jacqui Lambie’s nuclear response to secret flights for submarine project. Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs.

Samantha Maiden, news.com.au 7 Oct 23 #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes

Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs for bureaucrats working on Australia’s nuclear submarine project.

Despite the fact that the first submarine won’t be delivered to Australia under the deal until 2040, new documents reveal scheme has already blown up $15 million in travel costs alone in two years.

But bizarrely, the Defence Department has redacted the commercial airline departure times “for security reasons” suggesting it might reveal patterns of travel and put bureaucrats lives and safety at risk…………………………………………………………

It’s the same reason the defence department is refusing to reveal details of Defence Minister Richard Marles’ VIP flights suggesting it could put his safety in danger.

Australia plans to acquire a total of eight nuclear powered submarines (SSNs) under the $368bn deal.

But at least three of the subs and up to five of the eight will be Virginia-class submarines it will buy from the United States.

New data revealed under freedom of information laws reveal that Vice Admiral Jonathan Dallas Mead, the navy’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce chief, has spent $197,000 on 8 overseas trips alone.

That’s contributing to the $15 million in global travel costs, a figure that adds up to $633,000 per month.

Defence representatives travelled to the United States and United Kingdom, and our AUKUS partners travelled to Australia, as part of the 18-month consultation period.

“Fifteen million bucks is a shocking amount to spend on travel, that‘s a bill of $633,000 a month for the Australian tax payer,” Senator Lambie said.

Defence personnel don’t get frequent flyer points – but do get status points.

“Admiral Mead alone has spent $197,000 on eight overseas trips, I bet his status points are looking good,” she said.

“It‘s not a submarine – it’s a gravy boat! And why all this secrecy?

“The government says the flights have been redacted because it‘s a national security matter, what a load of rubbish, these flights are in the past, there’s no national security issue.”

“Australia seems to be footing most of the bill for the AUKUS submarines, what is the UK and the US paying?.”

“This government campaigned on transparency and yet they are failing Australians when it comes to public scrutiny.“

Senator Lambie asked the Department of Defence how much had actually been spent out of the $300 million that was allocated to the task force in the financial year of 2022-23.

In response, the department confirmed that Defence representatives travelled to the United States and United Kingdom, and AUKUS partners travelled to Australia, as part of the 18-month consultation period.

The total expenditure for the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce over the 18-month consultation period (16 September 2021 to 31 March 2023) was $139.2m.

A breakdown of class of travel is not held…….. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/jacqui-lambies-nuclear-response-to-secret-flights-for-submarine-project/news-story/0bb81fa011f5c3128e9caa7361a7ef2d

October 8, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »