So to recap, Australia’s foreign policy is being shaped “for decades to come” by an “independent” strategic review that (A) was authored by someone who is compromised by US funding, (B) is being implemented in part by an American former military official, (C) calls for greater and greater cooperation with the United States across the board, and (D) focuses primarily on targeting a nation that just so happens to be the number one geopolitical rival of the United States.
The Australian government has released the declassified version of its highly anticipated 2023 Defence Strategic Review (DSR), and the war propagandists are delighted.
Here are the first few paragraphs to give you a sense of the squealing glee these swamp monsters are experiencing right now:
Angus Houston and Stephen Smith have delivered a blaring wake-up call to any Australians who think they still live in a sanctuary of safety at the southern edge of the Earth: you’re living in the past.
To those inside and outside the Australian Defence Force who think business-as-usual will cut it in the future: you’re delusional.
Their message to anyone confused about the biggest threat to Australia’s national security is similarly blunt: it is our largest trading partner, China.
Like a pair of doctors delivering confronting news to an ill patient, the two men tasked with reshaping Australia’s military for the 21st century have opted for admirable candour in their defence strategic review.
Rejecting vague language about rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, the former defence chief and defence minister call out just one nation – China – for threatening Australia’s core interests.
“Like a pair of doctors.” That’s the kind of third-rate propaganda we get in the nation with the most consolidated media ownership in the western world.
The “defence” review focuses not on defending the shores of the continent of Australia, but instead over and over again makes mention of the need to protect the “rules-based order” in Australia’s “region” — the so-called “Indo-Pacific” — which includes China. It is for the most part 110 pages of mental contortions explaining why “defending” the nation of Australia is going to have to look a whole lot like preparing to pick a fight with an Asian nation thousands of kilometers away.
The public DSR actually only mentions China by name eight times, though by Knott’s ecstatic revelry you’d assume that was the only word it contains. In contrast, the document mentions the United States no fewer than 38 times, with the United Kingdom getting two mentions, New Zealand getting only one, and Australia’s neighbors like Papua New Guinea and Indonesia not mentioned by name at all.
“Our Alliance with the United States will remain central to Australia’s security and strategy,” the review reads. “The United States will become even more important in the coming decades. Defence should pursue greater advanced scientific, technological and industrial cooperation in the Alliance, as well as increased United States rotational force posture in Australia, including with submarines.”
The overshadowing presence of the United States in a document that is ostensibly about Australian security interests would be confusing to you if you did not know that Australia has for generations served as a US military and intelligence asset, where our nation’s interests are so subordinated to Washington’s that we’re not even allowed to know if the US is bringing nuclear weapons into our country.
In a foreshadowing of the DSR’s pledge to pursue even greater cooperation with the US, last year Australia’s Secretary of Defence Richard Marles said that the Australian Defence Force is moving “beyond interoperability to interchangeability” with the US military so they can “operate seamlessly together, at speed.” Which is a fancy way of saying that any meaningful separation between the Australian military and the American military has been effectively dissolved.
Marles, who is currently facing scrutiny in Australia for being illicitly secretive about the nature of a free golf trip he went on in his last visit to the United States, has said that the DSR “will underpin our Defence policy for decades to come.”
Even some of the implementation of the DSR’s findings will be overseen by an American, not an Australian. ABC reports that “a major component to determine the future shape of Australia’s naval fleet will be decided later this year in a ‘short, sharp’ review to be led by US Navy Vice Admiral William H Hilarides.”
The review itself has been tainted with severe conflicts of interest with regard to US influence. As Mack Williams noted in Pearls And Irritations earlier this month, the senior advisor and principal author behind the review is a man named Peter Dean, a professor and Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney. The USSC receives funding from the US government, and Dean’s own CV boasts that he “currently leads two US State Department-funded public diplomacy programs on the US-Australia Alliance.”
So to recap, Australia’s foreign policy is being shaped “for decades to come” by an “independent” strategic review that (A) was authored by someone who is compromised by US funding, (B) is being implemented in part by an American former military official, (C) calls for greater and greater cooperation with the United States across the board, and (D) focuses primarily on targeting a nation that just so happens to be the number one geopolitical rival of the United States.
It is hilarious, then, that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the release of the DSR by proclaiming that “At its core, all of this is making Australia more self-reliant, more prepared and more secure in the years ahead.” It is funnier still that he concluded that same speech with an Anzac Day acknowledgement of Australian troops who who have died in wars “to defend our sovereignty and our freedom.”
It doesn’t get any less self-reliant and sovereign than just handing over your nation’s military to a more powerful nation with a “There ya go mate, use it however you reckon’s fair.” You really could not come up with a more egregious abdication of national sovereignty if you tried. And yet our prime minister babbles about sovereignty and self-reliance while doing exactly that.
Just annex us and make us the 51st state already. At least that way we’d get a pretend vote in America’s fake elections.
“Our Alliance with the United States will remain central to Australia’s security and strategy,” the review reads. “The United States will become even more important in the coming decades. Defence should pursue greater advanced scientific, technological and industrial cooperation in the Alliance, as well as increased United States rotational force posture in Australia, including with submarines.”
The overshadowing presence of the United States in a document that is ostensibly about Australian security interests would be confusing to you if you did not know that Australia has for generations served as a US military and intelligence asset, where our nation’s interests are so subordinated to Washington’s that we’re not even allowed to know if the US is bringing nuclear weapons into our country.
In a foreshadowing of the DSR’s pledge to pursue even greater cooperation with the US, last year Australia’s Secretary of Defence Richard Marles said that the Australian Defence Force is moving “beyond interoperability to interchangeability” with the US military so they can “operate seamlessly together, at speed.” Which is a fancy way of saying that any meaningful separation between the Australian military and the American military has been effectively dissolved.
Marles, who is currently facing scrutiny in Australia for being illicitly secretive about the nature of a free golf trip he went on in his last visit to the United States, has said that the DSR “will underpin our Defence policy for decades to come.”
Even some of the implementation of the DSR’s findings will be overseen by an American, not an Australian. ABC reports that “a major component to determine the future shape of Australia’s naval fleet will be decided later this year in a ‘short, sharp’ review to be led by US Navy Vice Admiral William H Hilarides.”
The review itself has been tainted with severe conflicts of interest with regard to US influence. As Mack Williams noted in Pearls And Irritations earlier this month, the senior advisor and principal author behind the review is a man named Peter Dean, a professor and Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney. The USSC receives funding from the US government, and Dean’s own CV boasts that he “currently leads two US State Department-funded public diplomacy programs on the US-Australia Alliance.”
So to recap, Australia’s foreign policy is being shaped “for decades to come” by an “independent” strategic review that (A) was authored by someone who is compromised by US funding, (B) is being implemented in part by an American former military official, (C) calls for greater and greater cooperation with the United States across the board, and (D) focuses primarily on targeting a nation that just so happens to be the number one geopolitical rival of the United States.
It is hilarious, then, that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the release of the DSR by proclaiming that “At its core, all of this is making Australia more self-reliant, more prepared and more secure in the years ahead.” It is funnier still that he concluded that same speech with an Anzac Day acknowledgement of Australian troops who who have died in wars “to defend our sovereignty and our freedom.”
It doesn’t get any less self-reliant and sovereign than just handing over your nation’s military to a more powerful nation with a “There ya go mate, use it however you reckon’s fair.” You really could not come up with a more egregious abdication of national sovereignty if you tried. And yet our prime minister babbles about sovereignty and self-reliance while doing exactly that.
Just annex us and make us the 51st state already. At least that way we’d get a pretend vote in America’s fake elections.
One year of operation of a single, large nuclear power plant, generates as much of longpersisting radioactive poisons as one thousand Hiroshima-types atomic bombs. There is no way the electric power can be generated in nuclear plants without generating the radioactive poisons.
France’s troubled nuclear fleet a bigger problem for Europe than Russia gas. France caps its consumer power bills – to maintain the myth of “cheap” nuclear and to protect French pride .
In 100,000 years’ time the planet would still not have recovered from Mayak, Chernobyl, Doenreagh, Hanford, Rocky flats, Marshall Islands, Montebello, Maralinga and Fukushima; to name a few.
Average life expectancy in Ukraine and Belarus has REDUCED 4 yrs to age 68. Each year 6000 babies are born with “Chernobyl Heart” Half of them die! Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities.• 85 percent of Belarusian children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims. UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, including 38 percent increase in malignant tumours, 43 percent in blood circulatory illnesses and 63 percent in disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Submission No 61 [This submission contains numerous links which are all visible on the original, but not all here]
A few words about myself on this issue. I have been studying the Uranium fuel cycle, nuclear energy and the biological and genetic effects of radiation for over 40 years. I have read a dozen or more books and hundreds of scientific and medical papers on the topics.
Re Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 56
Senator Canavan and sponsors to the following bill: Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Firstly, I need to confirm this is a personal communication and not on behalf of any organisation.
On the one hand, I need to congratulate you for recognising that this current overwhelming push for renewables is ill-conceived, problematic, and will only hurt Australia’s future as well as worsen the situation for biodiversity losses
On the other hand, nuclear power is NOT a desirable alternative to head towards. I would like to address some of the components in the bill’s introductory speech by Senator Canavan. The statements in italics are taken from the Senator’s speech.
“Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy. Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station and Italy gets much of its imported electricity from France, where three quarters of the electricity is produced by nuclear.”
Italy has a very good reason for not building nuclear power: they have a major fault line running up the center of the country (and the Saudi’s should be cautious as well since they are sitting on top of a subduction zone). Anyone who builds a nuclear facility close to an active fault line is negligent, reckless or at minimum ignorant. This will become very apparent in the US once their Cascadia, San Andreas and New Madrid fault zones next adjust (expected soon) as they have built dozens of plants in fault zones.
“Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation.”
Unless there is an accident and then they pose a threat to all living things downwind for hundreds of years. ‘Accidents’ can be defined in many ways such as human error, seismic activity, tsunami’s (Fukushima), design flaws (Chernobyl), poor maintenance issues (Three Mile Island), the modern scourge of hackers – or the provocations of a hostile actor (such as what nearly happened in Ukraine at the Zaporizhzhia facility). In our current hostile world where we are very close to a full-blown third world war, any country with a nuclear power plant becomes an easy target for any aggressor who doesn’t even need to possess nuclear weapons of their own. All they need a is a simple device directed at a plant and a major disaster results. Perhaps nuclear might have been a reasonable option back in the 60’s but the current hostile and deceptive actors ‘running things’ now makes nuclear a huge liability. Australia has been smart to avoid this scenario thus far, regardless of the uranium resources we possess.
“Nuclear energy is used to produce electricity in 31 countries from some 450 nuclear reactors, providing around 10 per cent of global electricity. Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they provide reliable, emission free power.”
There is a misguided focus on emissions but the focus is on the WRONG emissions. Carbon is not the enemy and is needed by all vegetation on the planet. So focusing on nuclear as way to reduce emissions is irrelevant. This fixation on carbon driven by deleterious wealthy influences overseas that Australia should NOT be paying attention to is only meant to transfer wealth – not save the planet (you can tax carbon but you can’t tax the cold or solar output). I recognise that at least some of you have come to acknowledge that the ‘health crisis’ thrust upon us the past two years was a planned deception. Rest assured this AGW is another distraction and will result not only in wealth transfer but the diminishing of Australia to that of a ‘banana republic’. Coal has its problems but the emissions that need to be controlled from coal are the dusts and heavy metals that are dispursed such as mercury and arsenic. Are you aware that bioaccumulative fish from around the supposedly ‘clean’ waters of Qld’s barrier reef are loaded with mercury which would have come from power plants further down the coast? Until the poor performance problems of renewables can be solved (if ever), we are safer sticking with coal and focusing our efforts into filtering out the heavy metals from their exhausts. At least if some foreign actor decides to target them, the plant will be damaged but it won’t be spreading clouds of radiation throughout the southern hemisphere. (Please note I have not argued about gas – this is not our saviour either with its high levels of methane leaching, explosive nature and induced seismicity – refer to current quake swarm in Texas.) While the demand for electricity just continues to skyrocket (insert electric cars here), we can’t be eliminating the only generators that will produce enough to satisfy an ever increasing demand.
“Nuclear power is safe.”
Only when all conditions with the facility are perfect and no outside factors interfere with its operation. It doesn’t take all that much to turn it from stable to meltdown. The more complicated the system, the easier it is to make it fail. The Three Mile Island meltdown was caused by a faulty relief valve. The explosion of the NASA Challenger mission was caused by a faulty O-ring (a little ring of rubber on a cylinder).
“Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250 times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land.”
I agree that renewables should NOT be rolled out until the problems they create are fixed. There seems to be no due diligence being included in the rush to deliberately de-energise our power generation. But incidents with nuclear radiation can be unfixable. We have not yet invented a means of removing radiation from the atmosphere.
Also, what you have left out of your speech is the disposal issue. Where is all this radioactive waste supposed to be disposed of and how is it to be contained so that unforseen factors (earthquakes, hostile attacks) don’t disturb it? You have focused on the operation only of a nuclear power plant but not the consequences of accidents and disposal of waste. These need to be part of the evaluation and due diligence.
“The ARPANS Act regulates activities undertaken by Commonwealth entities affecting radiation, to ensure that the health and safety of people, and the environment, are protected from the harmful effects of radiation.”
Recommendation 1 Reject the proposed amendments to bills The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Recommendation 2 Threat priorities The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency: (a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
Recommendation 3 Nuclear energy The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear energy source.
Submission No.17. The Independent Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) Public Submission to the Inquiry into Environment andOther Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
About IPAN IPAN is a national umbrella organisation of community, peace, faith and environmental groups and trade unions around Australia with an interest in peace and security. IPAN aims to build public dialogue and pressure for change to a truly independent foreign policy for Australia – one in which our government plays a positive role in solving international conflicts peacefully.
The announcement of the Inquiry into Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 comes at a very critical time for our country.
IPAN feels very strongly about providing a contribution to this inquiry and seeks to make comments on the proposal to both amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations. These Acts currently expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.
Australia currently faces rapidly changing strategic circumstances, global instability and planetary threats to human security. This set of interlinking challenges, among others, requires an urgent and holistic response from the Australian government.
Recognising the circumstances outlined above, in 2020 IPAN initiated its own national public inquiry to ‘Explore the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’ (the People’s Inquiry) so as to determine a path that would lead Australia towards a genuinely independent, peaceful and secure defence and foreign policy. IPAN led ‘People’s Inquiry: Exploring the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’
The People’s Inquiry comprehensively questioned the foundations and assumptions underpinning the cornerstone of Australia’s security – the Australia-US Alliance – across several impact areas: military and defence, foreign policy, First Nations peoples, politics, society, workers, economy, and the environment.
The People’s Inquiry received 283 submissions from individuals and organisations across the country. An interim report was released in October 2021 and the full report was released on 22 November 2022.
IPAN’s submission to this current inquiry draws, in part, on the findings and recommendations of the People’s Inquiry, specifically those related to the area of impact on First Nation’s people, military and defence, foreign policy and the environment. In particular, some submissions focused directly on issues surrounding nuclear energy including concerns around storage of nuclear waste and consultation around land use (IPAN 2022a. pp.21,23). For a full copy of the Inquiry Report go to https://independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/
Introduction IPAN’S interest in matters related to nuclear energy, nuclear installations and nuclear weapons
IPAN has had a longstanding concern about nuclear issues, as a network of organisations and individuals motivated by the desire to see peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and greatly concerned that our world never sees a nuclear bomb dropped again – in particular such as the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, leading to the immediate and subsequent deaths of over two hundred thousand people.
To this end, IPAN (and many member organisations and individual members) has been a very strong supporter of the international Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) regarding the adoption of a UN treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons – i.e. the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
IPAN has been heartened by the positive steps that have been taken by the new Federal government, in attending the first Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in Vienna in June and ending Australia’s opposition tothe treaty by abstaining on a resolution at the UN First Committee after the previous government’s practice of voting ‘No’
Proposed Amendments to Federal Legislation IPAN is concerned about the proposals in the bill to amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations.
IPAN’ broad concerns with the use of nuclear power First and foremost, IPAN believes that radiation is dangerous to people and the environment and that it is critical to reduce human exposure to it. In addition, IPAN believes that the adoption of nuclear power in Australia would increase electricity costs, slow the transition to a low-carbon economy and introduce the potential for catastrophic accidents.
IPAN is also concerned about the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with huge volumes required for the production of nuclear energy. We are also concerned about the contentious issue of where to store nuclear waste, given the associated long-term risks of storage.
This submission therefore makes a number of key points in relation to the proposed amendments to the two acts – which if adopted would remove the blanket prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities. IPAN believes that the current blanket prohibition acts as a very important safeguard against the risks and dangers associated with the nuclear industry – and that to remove this blanket prohibition would be to the detriment of the Australian community, the environment and the Australian ecosystem.
Factors for the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications to consider in its decision regarding the proposed amendments
1 The dangers of radiation and risks of human exposure …………………………………………………….
2. Lack of compliance in the uranium mining industry.…………………………………………………….
3 The links between nuclear technology and military nuclear technology’
IPAN is in particular concerned with the links between civil nuclear technology and military nuclear technology. The ACF have highlighted that uranium is a “dual use fuel and nuclear is a dual use technology – it can power a reactor or a weapon” and they have described how the current conflict in Ukraine has seen “the weaponization of nuclear facilities and the threat of an uncontrolled radiation release”, even if the Russian army does not use its nuclear weapons (ACF 2022a, p.1 cited in IPAN, 2022, p. 71).
The development of nuclear energy could be seen as a slippery slope to the eventual development of nuclearpowered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. It is important to recognise that nuclear power programs have provided cover for numerous weapons programs over many years. An expansion of nuclear power would simply worsen the situation……………………
Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed military or terrorist targets. The current situation in Ukraine illustrates the risks:…………………………..
The current ban on nuclear energy in Australia provides a very important safeguard to avoid any chance of the eventual development of nuclear-powered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. We must continue this ban…………………………………………………………
4 The Costs of Nuclear Power
As pointed out in the second reading speech (by Senator Matt Canavan) of the ‘Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Wednesday, 28 September 2022, the building of a nuclear plant requires high capital costs and long construction times. While the Senator also argues that nuclear plants have relatively low operating costs – other factors must be considered, such as the cost of rehabilitation of mines and the cost of storage of nuclear waste, as well as the many risks involved………………………………………………
5. The Costs of nuclear energy vs renewable energy sources
IPAN believes that it is important to address a number of the claims made by Senator Canavan in the Second reading Speech (Australian Parliament 2022), for example where he asserted that “The relative costs of nuclear compare well to renewable energy. Between 1965 and 2018 the world spent $2 trillion on nuclear compared to $2.3 trillion for solar and wind, yet nuclear today produces around double the electricity than that of solar and wind.” He also added that costs may reduce soon.
As figures from Lazard Asset Investment (2021) in their annual Levelized Cost of Energy, Levelized Cost of Storage, and Levelized Cost of Hydrogen Report showed, the cost of nuclear energy is far greater than that of renewables, as per the following table. [ on original]
The costs of renewable technologies continue to decline globally, albeit at a slowing pace, reflecting reductions in capital costs, increased competition as the sector continues to mature and continued improvements in scale and technology. “Since 2010, the cost of energy has dropped by 82% for photovoltaic solar, by 47% for concentrated solar energy (CSP), by 39% for onshore wind and by 29% for wind offshore.”
Unlike the costs of wind and solar, the cost of nuclear power has actually risen over time, since 2008, the “projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by fourfold…and it is still rising”.
These figures are backed up by recent research from CSIRO and the national energy market operator (the Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO), with the 2022 CSIRO-AEMO GenCost report also showing that nuclear power is simply not competitive with renewables, with 2030 cost estimates for Australia as follows
A$136-326/MWh for Nuclear (small modular):
A$61-82/MWh for 90 percent wind and solar PV with integration costs (transmission, storage and synchronous condensers) necessary to allow these variable renewables to provide 90 percent of electricity in the National Electricity Market. (CSIOR/AEMO, 2022).
IPAN believes that there is simply no economic case for nuclear power in Australia.
Senator Canavan also referred to the trials of Small Modular Reactors that are happening in a range of countries currently and that “if they become a commercial prospect, their modular nature may deliver substantial cost savings through mass production”.
The ACF/ICAN have made the very clear point that SMRs however are unproven and do not actually make electricity in the real world, and further to this, the US Academy of Science in 2018 stated that “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and deployment over the next several decades” (cited in ACF/ICAN 2022)……………………………………………………
6 Environmental Impacts Urgent and Effective Action required.
The chaotic climate events that have punished Australia in recent years demand urgent and effective action.That urgency disqualifies the most expensive and slowest response (as outlined immediately above). In thisway, expense is not simply a consideration for investors. In addition, the imperative to better manage climate change is a strong argument against nuclear power
Storage of Nuclear Waste IPAN is concerned that despite years of debate and attempted negotiations around the storage of nuclear waste, it is now 2023 and there is still no agreement on a proven solution to manage or isolate and dispose of high-level radioactive waste that has been produced in power reactors. Currently there is not one single operating deep underground repository for high-level nuclear waste across the world……………………………
………………………………………
Another very significant factor is the extreme reluctance on the part of communities earmarked as a site or potential site for nuclear waste. There are clear issues of racism in the choice of nuclear waste dump sites.
A pertinent point is made by Native American activist, Winona LaDuke, The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive waste problem for fifty years, and they’ve finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an Indian reservation.
Three years of electricity in a reactor leaves a legacy of 100,000 years of waste – a massive inter-generational burden, which represents a “Poor risk to return ratio” and damage to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years……………………………………………….
Water resources required There are also significant issues around the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with a huge volume of precious and at times scarce water resources required on an ongoing basis for the production of nuclear energy. As an example from Australia, the Mulga Rock uranium project (200 kms east of Kalgoorlie – near the Queen Victoria nature reserve in the Great Victoria Desert), one of four proposed uranium mines given approval by WA’s former Liberal-National government Environmental approvals, would see the “extraction of 15 million litres of water per day, would create 32 million tonnes of tailings, threatens vulnerable species including the Sandhill Dunnart” (ACF/ICAN 2022)…………………………………………………….
Australia’s current independent stance in banning nuclear energy
AS rightly pointed out, by Senator Canavan in the Second Reading Speech, Australia is “the only developed country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy (which has been in effect since the 10 December 1999 decision of Federal Parliament Australia is also one of only three countries within the 20 richest nations in the world to not have nuclear energy………………….. this must be a cause of celebration, not derision. IPAN feels that it is disingenuous of Senator Canavan to refer to Australia’s “status as a nuclear outcast”. While Senator Canavan highlights the fact that “Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world” – this is not a reason to develop nuclear energy, for all of the reasons that IPAN is highlighting in this submission.
Decisions about investing in nuclear energy IPAN has concerns about Senator Canavan’s assertion that “The potential for high costs is not a reason to ban anyone building a power station” and that “Decisions about the relative profitability of different investments should be left to the businesses making those decisions”. This is not how public policy works. There are a rangeof processes and provisions that must be worked through with any public policy decision, with environmental impact assessments being one such example. Decisions such as these cannot happen in a void or be left purelyto the market (usually subsidised, in the case of nuclear power).
It also seems rather bewildering that the Senator also makes the seemingly very obvious comment that “Our environmental laws should focus on protecting Australia’s natural environment.”. The proposal to amend the two Acts in question represents precisely the kind of scenario where environmental laws should come in to play – to assess any negative impacts on the natural environment that would result from future use of nuclearenergy.
Previous Inquiries regarding nuclear energy in Australia A number of recent and very recent inquiries are very relevant to the issues being examined in this current inquiry. It is fair to say each of the three inquiries listed did not come out favourably for the nuclear industry.
The 2006 UMPNER was particularly comprehensive and very well resourced and contained a relatively high proportion of people who were pro-nuclear – yet it concluded with a resounding, reluctant ‘no’.
10 Impact on First Nations peoples First Nations’ peoples and their lands are especially impacted by the nuclear industry, both historically (sincethe UK nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s in outback South Australia) and presently.
11 Human rights issues
……………………………… There are clearly human rights implications whenever there is a proposal for the introduction or use of a substance or material that has the potential for catastrophic accidents and where there are inherent risks and challenges, such as those associated with the use of nuclear energy and high-level nuclear waste management. The exclusion of First Nations Peoples from their traditional lands used as the waste repository site represents a major denial of the human rights of those First Nations People.
12 Why Australia should sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)…………………………………………………………………………………..
Recommendations IPAN submits the following recommendations to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Environment and Communications:
Recommendation 1 Reject the proposed amendments to bills The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Recommendation 2 Threat priorities The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency: (a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
Recommendation 3 Nuclear energy The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear energy source.
Submission No. 14 Combined Environmental Organisations: Friends of the Earth Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Wilderness Society, Conservation Council of WA, Conservation SA, Nature Conservation Council (NSW), Environment Victoria, Queensland Conservation Council, Environment Centre NT and Environs Kimberley(PDF 1470 KB)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of these prudent, long-standing protections.
Proponents of the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 (The Bill) are seeking to remove these prohibitions, claiming this is needed to address climate change. However nuclear power is – at best ‒ a distraction to effective climate action.
It is important to note that promoters of nuclear power in Australia are not suggesting we build the nuclear technology that currently exists in the commercial world. The reactors that exist today are increasingly seen as a high cost and high-risk way to make electricity. They are also directly linked to high-level radioactive waste and nuclear security, weapons and terrorism concerns.
Nuclear promoters are staking their hopes – and Australia’s energy future – on technology which is uncertain and unproven. At the time of the 2021 Glasgow COP26, the UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on Climate Change Selwin Hart stated that nations seeking to base their climate response on technologies that have not yet been developed are “reckless and irresponsible.”1 The good news about the renewed nuclear discussion is that it highlights that business as usual with fossil fuels is not an option. The bad news is the very real risk of delay, distraction and a failure to advance a just energy transition.
In response to the 2019 federal inquiry by the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy into the pre-requisites for nuclear power, over 60 Australian organisations representing millions of Australians, and including trade unions, Indigenous, environment, health, faith and peace groups, signed a joint statement opposing nuclear power:
“Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation. The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia. There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society. Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition. Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future. Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:
Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.
Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.
Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.
Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.
Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.
Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy.
Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.
Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).
Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.
Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.
The path ahead: Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology. We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future. Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”……………………………………………………………………
Australia cannot afford to lose more time on energy ‘culture-wars’ or on the false promise of unproven and non-commercial technology.
The former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Allison Macfarlane, provided a further reality check in 2021 stating, “when it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late.”9
Wishful thinking is no substitute for real world evidence and action, or for effective climate action.
Renewable energy exists in the real world and this is the crucial decade when real climate action is urgently needed to make the required transition to a low carbon future.
It is our considered view that the pursuit of nuclear power would delay and undermine efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions and address the challenges and opportunities of climate change.
Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.
Recommendation: Our groups call on the Committee to support effective climate action by recommending against the proposed Bill and reaffirming support for the existing and prudent federal nuclear prohibitions.
Submission no. 102 to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications. Regarding Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 – Noel Wauchope
Australia’s prohibition of the nuclear industry has served us well. We are among the majority of nations that are not burdened with the costs, the toxic wastes, the safety and security problems, and the weapons proliferation risks that burden the minority, the 32 countries that do have nuclear power. Australia is lucky in that regard.
But we’re unlucky in that Australia is the continent most at risk from global heating. We’re experiencing right now the weather extremes that herald rapid climate change. So, the time for Australia to act – is NOW. In 20 or 30 years – it will be too late. But 20 or 30 years is the (optimistic) time frame for getting nuclear reactors operating – whether they be large or small reactors. That is, of course, assuming that nuclear reactors would really be effective in cutting greenhouse emissions, – a questionable assumption, anyway.
The push in Australia is for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) . We must remember that with small nuclear reactors, there needs to be a number of them, to produce anything like the amount of energy that a large nuclear reactor produces. So for Australia the small nuclear reactor plan would mean an absurdly large number of these SMRs to be brought into operation very quickly, across the nation, to have any effect on reducing greenhouse gases.
We also need to remember that these SMRs are still only in the design phase – not operating on any land in the world. Is Australia to be the guinea pig for trying out an expensive experiment?
In the meantime Australia is a leader in adopting renewable energy technologies, both large scale and small. Wind and solar power are here NOW – faster and ever cheaper to install, with constantly improving battery systems for back-up.
My worry is that Australia’s resources,human, financial and physical, could be redirected away from critically needed energy conservation and renewable systems, towards an expensive and untested nuclear power system.
This distraction from practical and clean technologies would also bring the problems of long-lasting radioactive waste, and of nuclear facilities as a target for terrorism.
The experience of other countries should provide a salutary lesson for Australians. France – the much touted nuclear power champion, had a very worrying time in recent summers – nuclear reactors cutting back due to heat problems and water shortage. France is still struggling in their winter, and now has to import electricity. If France’s nuclear fleet can’t cope with summer heat, what hope has Australia got?
All the nuclear countries are struggling with the problem of disposal of nuclear wastes. Finland’s much vaunted underground disposal facility, (at enormous cost) will barely have enough space for Finland’s own nuclear wastes, let alone anyone else’s. Small nuclear reactors do produce a smaller percentage of wastes, but so highly toxic that they form a big problem, too
While most big nuclear reactors world-wide are placed near the coast, vulnerable to sea-level rise, that doesn’t make small nuclear reactors safer. The safety plans for small nuclear reactors are quite confusing. For example, there’s a strong suggestion that they should be placed underground – a supposedly safer and more secure location. But what if there’s a flood?
If Australia maintains its nuclear prohibitions, our direction towards a clean energy future is clear. Removal of these bans would bring not only a plethora of pro-nuclear promotional advertising, but the beginning of a costly experiment in an old technology, nuclear power, whose time is over – the SMR drive is its last gasp. All this at a time when Australia desperately needs to take clean energy actions – to both reduce the rate global warming and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Friends of the Earth Australia Australian Conservation Foundation Greenpeace Australia Pacific The Wilderness Society Conservation Council of WA Conservation SA Nature Conservation Council (NSW) Environment Victoria Queensland Conservation Council Environment Centre NT Environs Kimberley
Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 14 January 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of these prudent, long-standing protections.
Proponents of the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 (The Bill) are seeking to remove these prohibitions, claiming this is needed to address climate change. However nuclear power is – at best ‒ a distraction to effective climate action.
It is important to note that promoters of nuclear power in Australia are not suggesting we build the nuclear technology that currently exists in the commercial world. The reactors that exist today are increasingly seen as a high cost and high-risk way to make electricity. They are also directly linked to high-level radioactive waste and nuclear security, weapons and terrorism concerns.
Nuclear promoters are staking their hopes – and Australia’s energy future – on technology which is uncertain and unproven. At the time of the 2021 Glasgow COP26, the UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on Climate Change Selwin Hart stated that nations seeking to base their climate response on technologies that have not yet been developed are “reckless and irresponsible.”1
The good news about the renewed nuclear discussion is that it highlights that business as usual with fossil fuels is not an option. The bad news is the very real risk of delay, distraction and a failure to advance a just energy transition.
In response to the 2019 federal inquiry by the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy into the pre-requisites for nuclear power, over 60 Australian organisations representing millions of Australians, and including trade unions,
Indigenous, environment, health, faith and peace groups, signed a joint statement opposing nuclear power: “Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation. The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia. There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society. Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition. Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.
Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:
Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.
Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.
Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.
Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.
Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.
Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly. Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).
Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.
Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.
The path ahead: Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology. We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future. Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
There is now a consensus or near-consensus that, in the words of Dr. Ziggy Switkowski at the 2019 federal nuclear inquiry, “the window is now closed for gigawatt-scale nuclear” in Australia. Dr. Switkowski further noted that “nuclear power has got more expensive, rather than less expensive”, that there is “no coherent business case to finance an Australian nuclear industry”, and that no-one knows how a network of small modular reactors (SMRs) might work in Australia because no such network exists “anywhere in the world at the moment”.
The 2019 federal nuclear inquiry2 included Coalition MPs who were, in principle, enthusiastic about nuclear power. However, the Committee’s report argued that the government should retain legal bans prohibiting the development of conventional, large nuclear power reactors (“Generation I, Generation II and Generation III”).3 Committee chair Ted O’Brien said, “Australia should say a definite ‘no’ to old nuclear technologies.”4
The Committee’s report called for a partial repeal of legal bans to permit the development of “new and emerging nuclear technologies” including SMRs, a call that was ruled out by the Morrison government.5 The current Labor federal government and the Australian Greens (among others) support the legal prohibitions. The Labor dissenting report to the 2019 federal nuclear inquiry argued for retaining the prohibition:
“There is no basis for lifting the legislative prohibition on nuclear energy (Recommendation 3). There is no need for additional work or specific investigations into the science or economics of nuclear energy (Recommendation 2) as Australia already has significant expertise and engagement in this space through the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and through our nuclear-related international treaty-based collaborations. Devoting resources to a nuclear wish-fulfilment exercise, including what sounds like a nuclear propaganda exercise (e.g., ‘manage a community engagement program that would educate and inform Australians’) would be a costly and wasteful distraction.”
We wholeheartedly agree.
A January 2019 statement issued by the Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists and other policy experts6 argued that nuclear power reactors “are not appropriate for Australia and probably never will be” and further stated: “Nuclear power stations are highly controversial, can’t be built under existing law in any Australian state or territory, are a more expensive source of power than renewable energy, and present significant challenges in terms of the storage and transport of nuclear waste, and use of water”
The pressing climate and energy crisis would be exacerbated by opening the door to nuclear power which would complicate and delay the much-needed transition away from fossil fuels. The opportunity cost of investing time and money in Gen IV nuclear power concepts and SMRs would be high and would distract from far more effective climate responses, especially as novel nuclear technology is unproven, not commercially available, and retains many of the same problems and risks as conventional, large-scale nuclear power.
SMRs do not have any meaningful existence. Some small reactors exist but currently there is no such SMR mass manufacturing capacity, and no company, consortium, utility or national government is seriously considering betting billions building an SMR mass manufacturing capacity. The only two operating SMRs ‒ one each in Russia and China ‒ could only loosely be described as SMRs (lacking serial factory construction of reactor components or ‘modules’). Both were long delayed and subject to large cost increases.
Instead, we should embrace a diverse suite of renewable energy options. Australia is well placed to be a global leader in this sector and to grow and enjoy the clear environmental, energy security and economic benefits.
Further, we maintain that the prohibitions on nuclear power should be retained because:
Nuclear power could not possibly pass any reasonable economic test. It could not be introduced or maintained without huge taxpayer subsidies and would undoubtedly result in higher electricity prices.
There is no clear social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. Opinion polls indicate that Australians are strongly opposed to a nuclear power reactor being built in their local vicinity (10‒28% support, 55‒73% opposition); and opinion polls find that support for renewable energy sources far exceeds support for nuclear power (for example a 2015 IPSOS poll found 72‒87% support for solar and wind power but just 26% support for nuclear power).
The pursuit of a nuclear power industry would almost certainly worsen patterns of disempowerment and dispossession that Australia’s First Nations communities have and continue to experience from uranium, nuclear and radioactive waste projects.
The issue of the long-term management of low, intermediate and high-level nuclear waste resulting from a nuclear power should preclude further consideration nuclear power as an energy option. This unresolved inter-generational waste issue highlights that nuclear is not a ‘clean’ energy source.
The introduction of nuclear power would delay and undermine the development of effective and cost-effective energy and climate policies based on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
Introducing nuclear power to Australia would necessitate 10 years for planning and approvals, 10 years for construction, and an estimated 6.5 years7 to repay the energy and carbon debts from construction. Thus, nuclear power could only begin to contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions around 2050 even in the unlikely event that legal prohibitions were repealed in the near future. If we assume 10 years for the repeal of current legal prohibitions, nuclear power could only begin to contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions around 2060.
Nuclear reactors are increasingly vulnerable to climatic changes and extreme weather conditions.
Significant security and safety considerations, including the potential for infrastructure weaponisation and the vulnerability of civilian nuclear reactors in conflict zones as highlighted in the Ukraine war.
It is important to note that the impact of the nuclear industry on First Nations communities in Australia and globally has been disproportionate and discriminatory. In Australia this can be seen in many cases, including long standing concerns and tensions over radioactive waste management.
Decades-long efforts to establish a repository and store for Australia’s low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes continue to flounder. The federal Labor government has inherited and is currently progressing the previous government’s plans for a national nuclear waste facility near Kimba in regional South Australia. This is despite the opposition of many local farmers and the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. A legal challenge initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners is currently underway and contest around the waste plan is growing.
Our groups believe there is a pressing need for the federal government to pause the current National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process pending the findings of a dedicated inquiry that explores all available options for the management of Australia’s existing holdings of radioactive waste.
The policy calcification and community division around the management of our existing national radioactive waste inventory should sound a cautionary note over any moves to take Australia further down a nuclear path.
Indeed, former Resources Minister Matt Canavan stated in June 2019 that “if we can’t find a permanent home for low-level radioactive waste associated with nuclear medicines, we’ve got a pretty big challenge dealing with the high-level waste that would be produced by any energy facilities”.
Fortunately, we are not faced with the limited energy options of coal, gas or nuclear.
A growing number of expert studies have mapped out viable, affordable scenarios for 100% renewable electricity generation in Australia8, while numerous studies demonstrate the significant and widening cost advantage enjoyed by renewables compared to nuclear power. Moreover, CSIRO/AEMO research shows that even when transmission and storage costs are factored in, renewables are still far cheaper than nuclear power.
Australia cannot afford to lose more time on energy ‘culture-wars’ or on the false promise of unproven and non-commercial technology.
The former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Allison Macfarlane, provided a further reality check in 2021 stating, “when it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late.”9
Wishful thinking is no substitute for real world evidence and action, or for effective climate action.
Renewable energy exists in the real world and this is the crucial decade when real climate action is urgently needed to make the required transition to a low carbon future.
It is our considered view that the pursuit of nuclear power would delay and undermine efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions and address the challenges and opportunities of climate change.
Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.
Recommendation: Our groups call on the Committee to support effective climate action by recommending against the proposed Bill and reaffirming support for the existing and prudent federal nuclear prohibitions.
Senator Matt Canavan has a chequered history when it comes to his attitudes and statements on energy and resources
Sept 2021 Canavan cold on the push for nuclear power – and talked up the prospects of coal exports. “Obviously, if we can’t find a long-term solution for that level of waste it’s pretty hard to fathom that we could go beyond that for the production of nuclear energy that does produce a larger amount and more waste of a higher category to manage.”
Augus 31 21 Canavan tweetedcalled on Australia to boycott Glasgow, labelling the conference a “sham”
August 28 21 – lead the charge in his party’s anti-science war, with the CSIRO a main target
“On 27 October 2022 the Senate referred the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2023.
The close date for submissions is 12 December 2022.
The leader is this push is Senator Matt Canavan, Strangely, Canavan resigned from the task of being in charge of the nuclear waste dump program, in order to pursue his own politcal ambitions in a spill in the National Party.
Others include Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price– Country Liberal Party, (Northern Territory) David Julian Fawcett – Liberal Party,( SA), Alex Antic Liberal (SA) David Van -Liberal Party (Victoria), Ross Cadel – National Party (NSW), Gerard Rennick – Liberal National Party ( Queensland)
I’ll get back to you on this, but judging by last Thursday’s Senate Estimates, it sounds like there is again a push for nuclear energy by vested interests….Seems people like Matt Canavan – the Senator who RESIGNED from being Minister in charge of the dump SO THAT HE COULD PURSUE HIS OWN POLITICAL AMBITIONS in a spill in the Nats….and now crows about putting SCIENCE into these debates AND NOT POLITICS – absolutely LAUGHABLE….anyway he OPENED the Global Uranium Conference 2022 last week
AND he was in my opinion disruptive in the Senate Estimates sitting, interjecting when Minister Ayres was answering a question FROM A DIFFERENT SENATOR! Matt Canavan was given A LOT OF LATTITUDE in my opinion from the Seat…..GIVEN ALSO THAT BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ARE NOT RULED BY THE COALITION! Seems OLD HABITS die hard!
Mead’s Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce will deliver recommendations on options to the government….. it can only be done with the unfettered support of all three nations.…… the support of the Australian people will be essential for the plan to work.
After a year of intense research, the head of a 350-strong Defence taskforce is confident the Royal Australian Navy will be equipped with nuclear-powered submarines.
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead tells The Australian’s Defence Special Report he believes “absolutely” that the massive and highly complex industrial-scale endeavour is viable.
Set up after the AUKUS technology sharing agreement was signed by Australia, the US and UK a year ago, Mead’s Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce will deliver recommendations on options to the government by March next year and he says the work is on track.
The government will choose the design. Mead says a range of options has emerged. He won’t be drawn on specifics but says it can only be done with the unfettered support of all three nations. “We are providing options to our government on what we think is the optimum pathway, and we are working on that with our partners. I am very confident that we will be in a position for government to make an announcement next year on an optimal pathway, in conjunction with the other nations’ leaders.”
Mead cautions that a whole-of-government approach with very strong backing from industry and the support of the Australian people will be essential for the plan to work. “Defence cannot do this by itself. This social licence is a very important aspect for us. We need Australians to have confidence in our ability to build and operate these submarines.”
Submarines operate at the highest end of war fighting capability, says Mead, and they deliver significant deterrence. “When you put a nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) in the mix, you’ve got almost an exponential increase in speed, manoeuvrability, survivability, endurance, lethality in their ability to launch long range missiles, to operate around the region and to protect Australia.”
The government had made it clear that submarines were a fundamental part of Australia’s defence capability. Defence Minister Richard Marles has said the need for haste is dictated by deteriorating strategic circumstances, sharpening competition and rapid military modernisation.
The task force recommendations will go to the government at the same time as the Defence Strategic Review by former defence and foreign minister Stephen Smith and former Defence force chief Sir Angus Houston.
“We are briefing them so that they can take on board our body of work as well,” Mead says.
Members of Mead’s team often work through the night in talks with the US and UK partners. They include personnel from all three services, the Lucas Heights reactor, from the nuclear regulator and a range of departments.
He won’t comment on the argument that an interim conventionally powered submarine will be needed to avoid a capability gap, but he says the government has given him very clear direction to develop options that will deliver the nuclear-powered capability “in an expeditious manner”.
“I’m only looking at nuclear,” he says. “We are working with the US and UK on a range of options that we think can deliver the capability in an expeditious timeframe.”
Any decision to opt for an interim conventional submarine would be up to the government and Defence.
No one doubts that the submarine force will be eye-wateringly expensive.
The taskforce proposal will be presented to the government at the same time as the results of the Smith/Houston strategic review – and at a time of economic pressures and invidious trade-offs when the world is emerging from the Covid pandemic while facing a dangerous strategic environment. Marles has undertaken to strengthen the lethality and deterrent effect, but that assurance comes as demands for support for services such as the NDIS and veteran’s welfare increase.
With a strong social agenda, the government faces painful choices as it deals with a complex set of interlocking problems, and clear choices on ADF capabilities will be vital.
The review will focus on strengthening the ADF’s deterrent effect by getting sophisticated weapons and platforms into the hands of its men and women faster. Areas for rapid development include hypersonics and cyber. Some programs will be accelerated. The reviewers will be looking at options, possibly other than submarines, for long range strike capability. Missiles and long-range bombers such as the B-21 will be in that mix.
Australia needs to be able to defend itself against sophisticated threats – and to give an adversary pause to consider whether an attack is a good idea. While much is discussed about potential flashpoints such as Taiwan, Australia must be able to defend itself against unexpected threats.
Threats may come in the traditional “domains” of sea, land and air – or in the shape of cyber-attacks, or threats to democracy. Greater interdependencies mean threats coming from different domains at once, more lethal and with greater range. Great power adversaries can operate in all these domains making defending against them much more complex and expensive.
While there’s a need for hard power to deter, that can’t be the only focus. Defending the nation means putting more resources into diplomacy to develop deeper relationships with neighbours, and improving intelligence gathering to ensure threats are identified and understood as they develop. While Australia must be strong enough to deal with actors who see conflict as a means of getting their way, it needs to reassure friends that it has a defensive mindset…………………………
As these debates evolve, Mead has identified the optimal pathway to SSNs, with nine components underpinning the daily work of the task force. “If we can’t put a green tick to each of those nine components, then the boat becomes almost a meaningless concept,” he says.
First is Australia’s strategic situation and the policies set by the government to deal with it.
………. Mead won’t say where the design choice will land – on the US Virginia or the SSNX to follow it, Britain’s Astute which is about to go out of production, or the SSNR which will follow it. Or something else.
“Clearly these are decisions for government, and not just our government, but also the partners. They need to put it through their political systems.”
He says nuclear submarines will be built in Australia. “That’s very important to ensure Australia has a sovereign capability. They are likely to be built on land earmarked for the previous Attack-class submarine project on land adjacent to South Australia’s Osborne Naval Shipyard.”
Number five is the need to set up an industrial base that can support nuclear-powered submarines and a supply chain to build and maintain them – and to provide components for partner submarines, optimising the industrial bases of all three countries.
“If we are building a component for an Australian build and that’s what our partners need, then it would be wise for us to identify things we can assist them with. All countries have constrictions and bottlenecks.”
Teams from the US and UK have visited Australia to see what might be available here………….
An option is for Australia to do a deeper level of maintenance on US and UK submarines during their visits to bases such as HMAS Stirling, in WA. That could gradually increase to major maintenance.
“We need to start sending people from our industrial base to the US and UK to be embedded in their construction and maintenance yards so that when submarines visit Australia our people will have the necessary experience. ……….
For six months, Australian submariners have been working in US submarines “at the back end where the reactor is”. The UK has also committed to embarking Australians on its boats.
…………….There are signs all over the task force precinct stressing the importance of building a “nuclear mindset”, and each member’s ID card comes with that message.
Mead notes a report by the US director of Naval Reactors that in 65 years of operation, US Navy nuclear-powered warships and their support facilities have had no discernible effect on public health or the environment.
“It’s safe for the people, and it’s safe for the environment. We intend to learn from the US and UK so that we can demonstrate identical standards,” he says. “This nuclear mindset is a way of thinking within our people, within navy, and within other areas of the department…………..
………………………..Mead says the ninth crucial element is the need to clearly explain to Australians, and to the US and UK, what the program is all about and how the safety and reliability of the submarines can be assured.
-Brendan Nicholson is editor of ASPI’s commentary and analysis site, The Strategist.
The ALP’s new Resources Minister Madeline King has wasted no time in showing her support for the proposed nuclear waste dump at Napandee, near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula.
In response to an appeal to herself and PM Albanese from the disenfranchised and ignored Barngarla traditional owners, King has today stated that the nuclear waste dump was “a step forward” in the management of nuclear waste.
Background
Napandee was one of three sites proposed by the former Coalition government for the storage of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. Two, including Napandee, were at Kimba, whilst a third was at Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges.
The operation of any of the three sites in SA was illegal under SA law.
Under state legislation introduced by the Olsen Liberals and strengthened by Rann Labor, it is illegal to operate a nuclear waste facility in SA or to import or transport nuclear waste in SA.
The legislation is quite clear and states:
8—Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility. A person must not construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility. Maximum penalty: In the case of a natural person—$500 000 or imprisonment for 10 years. In the case of a body corporate—$5 000 000.
9—Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear waste storage facility. A person must not— (a) bring nuclear waste into the State; or (b) transport nuclear waste within the State, for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility in the State. Maximum penalty: In the case of a natural person—$500 000 or imprisonment for 10 years. In the case of a body corporate—$5 000 000.
This legislation came about largely through the actions of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta (the Anangu women of Coober Pedy) who led a campaign against a 1998 Howard Government proposal for a nuclear waste dump in SA.
In 2004, following Howard’s conceding defeat on the issue, three of those women, Eileen Kampakuta Brown, Ivy Makinti Stewart and Angelina Wonga issued a statement that began: “People said that you can’t win against the Government. Just a few women. We just kept talking and telling them to get their ears out of their pockets and listen. We never said we were going to give up. Government has big money to buy their way out but we never gave up…money doesn’t win.”
In 2016, SA Labor Premier Jay Weatherill set up a Royal Commission into SA’s nuclear energy future which included a proposal for a dump for high level overseas nuclear waste. Massive protests were held and a “citizen’s jury” effectively knocked all talk of nuclear waste dumps on the head.
The resurrected SA site proposals were met with further protests. The Adnyamathanha peoples led opposition to the Wallaberdina site and were successful in winning the vote in a community consultation of people in the Flinders Ranges.
The initial Kimba sites were rejected by former Minister Josh Frydenberg in 2016 due to a lack of broad community support; however in 2017 his replacement Matt Canavan revived the proposal and accepted Napandee as the site for the dump.
Barngarla Pushed Aside
Approval for the Kimba site required broad community support through a community consultation. In preparation for a local vote, millions of dollars of federal funds were poured into Kimba for “social and economic development” during the consultation process. Community facilities were upgraded, footpaths and gutters put in, and the town generally given a face lift.
No definition of “broad community support” exists in legislation, but Canavan mentioned a figure of “around 65%”. Kimba Council defined those eligible to vote as ratepayers living within a prescribed area and excluded the Barngarla native title holders on the grounds that they lived in other towns on Eyra Peninsula.
The Barngarla appealed to the Federal Court which upheld the Council’s decision on the grounds that the Barngarla would be “too difficult to identify”. A vote was held, resulting in a 61.5% vote for the dump with a majority of 70 in favour.
The Barngarla commissioned the Australian Election Company to poll people identified as Barngarla by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and identified 209 eligible voters. There were no votes for the dump, and 89 against it.
Had those 89 Barngarla votes been included in the Kimba Council “consultation”, the outcome would have been a “no” vote carried by a small majority.
Labor Opposition facilitates Napandee declaration
In Opposition, Labor had the opportunity to block the declaration of the Kimba site. However, Madeline King did a deal with the Coalition in June 2019 that allowed new Resource Minister Keith Pitt to declare Napandee as the site for the dump. Under the original federal legislation, an aggrieved party to the declaration had no right of judicial appeal. King negotiated to provide the appeal right and withdrew Labor opposition to the declaration despite saying that Labor would not pass the bill unless traditional owners were comfortable with it.
They clearly were not, and neither did they have the resources to properly fund a judicial appeal, although that process has now begun in the Federal Court.
Who is Madeline King?
Madeline King is a right-wing Labor politician with close ties to the mining industry and pro-US lobbyists.
She is a commercial lawyer who immediately prior to entering parliament was the chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank based at the University of Western Australia.
King was a ministerial adviser to federal Labor MP Gary Gray from 2011 to 2012. Gray had been National Secretary of the ALP from 1993 to 2000, but resigned to take up a position with fossil fuel giant Woodside Petroleum. As its Director of Corporate Affairs, he was an executive at the time when, in 2004, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer ordered the bugging of the East Timorese government during negotiations aimed at depriving the island nation of desperately needed revenue from underwater gas deposits. Gray was part of the Woodside negotiating team.
In 2007, Gray contested the WA seat of Brand and became part of Rudd’s Labor team. He retired in 2016 to take up a position with Mineral Resources, but was appointed Australian Ambassador to Ireland by Scott Morrison in 2020 in what some people have said was a move to prevent him having to testify in the case against Bernard Collaery and possibly incriminating Downer under cross-examination.
King’s employment as advisor to Gray has made her no stranger to the interplay between the corporate world and the benefits that accrue to Labor politicians who do their bidding.
No need for a Kimba dump
Opponents of the Kimba dump point out that much of the low-level waste (some of which needs to be stored for up to 300 years) is already safely stored at Woomera in SA. Some of it is stored at facilities at which it is produced. Medical nuclear waste accounts for only around 1% of the total and is short-lived and decays quite safely at the hospitals and treatment centres at which it is generated.
Intermediate level waste is generated at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Its decay time is far longer and needs to be kept from contact with humans for 10,000 years. A 2020 federal parliament inquiry confirmed that ANSTO, the operator of Lucas heights, has the ability to manage its waste onsite for “decades to come”. Ultimately, it will need to be stored in an underground repository. The government says this will take decades while the federal nuclear regulator says it could take a century to identify and construct.
If intermediate level waste is transported the 1700 kilometres from Lucas Heights to Kimba, it will be stored there as a temporary measure, in drums above the ground, pending its removal at some future stage to a permanent underground facility.
It therefore makes no sense to move these drums of intermediate level waste across the continent when there is storage capacity at Lucas Heights. Kimba is a temporary solution to a non-problem.
The issue of nuclear waste storage is one that must be referred to nation-wide community consultation. It is not a matter to be placed on the shoulders of this or that “remote” community to decided. We are all involved and we should all decide.
SA Unions made their position clear on March 15 when they unanimously supported a motion standing with the traditional owners. SA Unions Secretary Dale Beasley said “South Australian unions are completely united in their support of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste site at Kimba”.
Let’s make this year’s Hiroshima Day (August 6) a day for concerted action against nuclear energy, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear-powered submarines.
Let’s keep alive the spirit of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta.
Nuclear Australia 