Yesterday, Opposition leader Peter Dutton called for Australia to embrace nuclear power to secure a clean, cost-effective, consistent electricity supply.
Dutton is right to be concerned that the government’s policy of replacing coal-fired plants with renewables will end in a disastrous shortage of power.
Dutton’s proposal is to replace coal-fired plants with small modular reactors that are on the drawing board in the US, UK, and elsewhere.
By locating the new nuclear reactors in existing coal-fired plants, they can tap into existing transmission lines. …Dutton’s plan has other problems.
He envisages using small modular reactors as a backup for a system dominated by intermittent wind and solar power but nuclear power, like coal, with its high capital costs and low operating costs, is not well suited to that ancillary role.
What can I say? Can anyone imagine former Aussie Prime Minister and climate skeptic Tony Abbott proposing such a daft scheme? Is this really the Aussie opposition party’s idea of a vote winning energy policy?
Can you imagine someone this weak having to deal with a real crisis? If someone invaded Australia, would he need to conduct an opinion poll before deciding whether to send soldiers to repel the invaders?
If Dutton is so scared of standing up to the greens in his own party ranks, that he makes a fool of himself, inserting a superfluous role for renewables in a nuclear energy policy scenario, who will he be prepared to stand up to?
Grow a pair Peter Dutton – nobody is going to vote for a weak leader who tries to please everyone. Much as I detest the Albanese government, even proposing such a ridiculous policy is proof your party is not ready or fit to govern.
The Sydney Morning Herald has accused Australia of siding with Russia, China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia to sink a Pacific Islands proposal for a $100 / ton of carbon levy on marine shipping emissions.
Australia sides with China, Russia in bid to sink Pacific nations’ climate plan
London: Australia has been criticised for siding with China and Russia to oppose a popular plan from a group of Pacific Island nations to tackle carbon emissions from the shipping industry.
…
An ambitious proposal conceived and championed by Pacific Island nations including Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands — which has one of the world’s largest shipping fleets registered to its flag — would introduce a $100 per tonne levy on maritime emissions in order to make cleaner fuels cost-competitive with the dirtier heavy fuel oil that is the industry standard.
But The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald spoke to three sources present in closed preliminary discussions who said opposition to the proposal has hardened among a group of about 20 nations including China, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Australia. This masthead has seen documentation that confirms their accounts.
…
Though Australia has voiced support for aligning the industry with Paris Agreement climate targets of holding warming to 1.5 degrees, the sources said it remained opposed to the shipping levy as proposed by the Pacific nations. Alternative proposals could also be debated and it is not clear which, if any, Australia might support.
What a surprise, nations which depend on long distance international shipping have opposed a measure which would shut down international shipping.
All this would be a non-issue if greens relaxed their opposition to nuclear energy. If shipping companies were allowed to install nuclear power plants on cargo ships, there would be no maritime emissions to tax.
“… Each new megawatt of solar power requires 35-45 tonnes of steel, which still needs iron ore and coal …”
Critical minerals ‘main event’ in climate change action
By Marion Rae Updated June 26 2023 – 12:41pm, first published 12:38pm
More mining, not less, is needed to support the world’s climate change targets and avert an energy shortage, a global summit has been told.
The shift to clean energy systems is gaining momentum, and unlike previous transformation it relies on critical minerals and rare earths, Resources Minister Madeleine King said on Monday at a mining symposium in Brisbane.
An onshore wind power plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant, Ms King said.
Each new megawatt of solar power requires 35-45 tonnes of steel, which still needs iron ore and coal despite “exciting developments” in hydrogen that may eventually lead to Australia producing green steel.
“That remains distant, so metallurgical coal will remain a necessary component of steel for some time to come,” she said.
…
Critical minerals are “not a sideshow for clean energy, it’s really part of the main event”.
Its refreshing to see Canberra Times mention some cold hard facts, even if they are mixed with fantasies about the shift to clean energy systems gaining momentum.
The reality is nobody knows where the minerals required for clean energy targets will come from. In 2019 Foreign Policy analysed what would be required, one of the requirements was a 2000% increase in Lithium production: (2050 – 2023) x 2000% = 540 years worth of current Lithium production to hit Net Zero by 2050.
The minister mentions “hydrogen” smelted green steel. For now industrial scale green steel is a pipe dream. Iron ore can be smelted using hydrogen rather than coal, but the process is expensive, because all traces of hydrogen must be removed from the final product. The slightest hydrogen contamination in steel causes embrittlement, which leads to serious and difficult to detect structural defects in the final product.
If you add green regulatory hostility towards industry, spiralling energy prices, a struggling manufacturing sector, and aggressive enforcement of environmental regulations to the gross shortfall of green mineral resources, it is not difficult to see why the world is on track for a big Net Zero miss.
No constitutional guarantee = free speech at the pleasure of politicians. But even the USA is at risk from attempts to shut down free speech.
The Issue
Misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy.
In January 2023, the Minister for Communications announced that the Australian Government would introduce new laws to provide the independent regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), with new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation.
The new powers will enable the ACMA to monitor efforts and require digital platforms to do more, placing Australia at the forefront in tackling harmful online misinformation and disinformation, while balancing freedom of speech.
The proposed powers would:
enable the ACMA to gather information from digital platform providers, or require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation
enable the ACMA to request industry develop a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which the ACMA could register and enforce
allow the ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard (a stronger form of regulation), should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms.
The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services.
The ACMA powers will strengthen and support the existing voluntary framework established by the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation (the voluntary code), and will extend to non-signatories of the voluntary code.
We want to hear your feedback on the proposed legislation. It’s easy to have your say—simply read the exposure draft Bill and the supporting documents and:
Make a submission below by clicking the ‘Have your say’ button.
The Guidance Note for the exposure draft Bill provides an explanation of the key parts of the Bill. For a short explanation of some of the Bill’s key elements, please see the fact sheet.
The Australian Government will introduce legislation this year to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online.
The legislation will provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to hold big tech companies to account for harmful content on their platforms.
The new powers follow the release of a report by ACMA on the adequacy of digital platforms’ disinformation and news quality measures, including the effectiveness of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation which was launched by industry in February 2021. The report highlights that disinformation and misinformation are significant and ongoing issues.
The growth of disinformation and misinformation erodes trust in democratic institutions and causes harm to individuals and businesses. Digital platforms must take responsibility for what is on their sites and take action when harmful or misleading content appears.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, rampant disinformation and misinformation on social media undermined public health efforts to contain and treat the virus. More than 4 in 5 Australians reported having experienced COVID-19 misinformation in the 18 months to June 2021.
The new powers include:
Information gathering powers which will incentivise greater platform transparency and improve access to Australia-specific data on the effectiveness of measures to address disinformation and misinformation
Additional powers to register and enforce industry codes or make industry standards to encourage platforms to be ambitious in addressing the harms of disinformation and misinformation. These will provide ACMA with the ability to hold platforms to account should their voluntary efforts prove inadequate or untimely.
A Misinformation and Disinformation Action Group will be established, bringing together key stakeholders across government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on emerging issues and best practice responses.
The Government will consult on the scope of the new powers ahead of introducing legislation into the Parliament in the second half of 2022.
Although the draft laws seem a little vague about what the government believes constitutes disinformation, there seems little doubt climate skepticism will be included in the scope of these new laws. Federal Climate Minister Chris Bowen has indicated he thinks climate skeptic narratives are “fundamentally dishonest”.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen criticises ‘right-wing commentators’
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen has taken aim at “right-wing commentators” in Australia.
Australian “right-wing commentators” are pedalling a “fundamentally dishonest narrative” about the energy crisis in Europe, a Labor cabinet minister has said.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he’d “seen plenty” of these people attempting to blame energy shocks in the wake of the Ukraine war on a too-rapid transition to renewables.
“The price of gas in Europe is around nine times that of renewables, and yet some geniuses argue the problem is too much reliance on renewables,” Mr Bowen said on Monday.
“This is the latest catchcry of those who seek to deny and delay action in Australia, like we haven’t had enough denial and delay in Australia over the last ten years.”
The obvious premise behind these laws, that the government or government appointed experts have the wisdom to decide what constitutes disinformation, is absurd.
Look at the embarrassment Facebook faced when they had to backflip on censoring Covid lab leak theories, after Fauci hinted that a lab leak was a possibility.
Update on May 26, 2021 at 3:30PM PT:
In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps. We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge.
Were people wrong to suggest Covid might have leaked from a lab, until Fauci gave permission to discuss this possibility?
Imagine a future where people like Fauci or Bowen decide what constitutes a legitimate public conversation, in all aspects of public life. Because that is where Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Europe, and perhaps even the USA are headed, if we don’t start pushing back against these ill considered attempts to constrain our freedom.
Companies like Facebook are dancing a fine line between legitimate content moderation and editorialising. Nobody wants social media sites full of obscene and criminal sexualised underage material, with anti-censorship laws so strict that social media companies are powerless to remove such filth. Yet at the same time there are legitimate arguments that heavy handed social media censorship is already impeding the right of US citizens to enjoy their constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Social media companies are very much the town square of today’s world. This especially applied during the recent Covid lockdown, when people were prohibited from socialising in person – an issue which I believe has not received sufficient recognition.
Of course, US citizens enjoy protections which Australians do not. Australians, unlike Americans, have no constitutional free speech guarantee, so we are a lot more vulnerable to these kinds of encroachments on our freedom.
Australians have been invited to comment on these proposed laws. I urge all Australians to respond, and to contact your federal MP and Senators, to tell them exactly what we think of politicians trying to constrain our freedom to share our opinions with our fellows.
Power prices are rising, despite recent political promises they wouldn’t, and renewable investment has stalled, despite frantic government efforts to attract new capital.
‘Profound slowdown’: Alan Finkel quits Victoria’s SEC
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel has quit his role advising Victoria’s State Electricity Commission, as the organisation’s chief executive warned energy prices will rise, despite Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ election promise the SEC would bring down prices.
…
Chris Miller, appointed interim CEO of the SEC, acknowledged on Thursday the energy transition would cause a large uptick in energy prices, despite Mr Andrews’ election claims.
“We know that getting to 95 per cent renewables in Victoria will require a large uptick in billed build rates [see AFR correction below],” he told the conference.
Part of this slowdown might be a perception that China’s economy is about to fall off a cliff. Australia is heavily dependent on the Chinese economy.
The problem afflicting China is for decades Chinese local officials have been running a Ponzi scheme, borrowing heavily to hit fake economic growth targets, squandering the borrowed money on useless infrastructure projects – to the tune of at least $18 TRILLION Dollars in outstanding Chinese local government debt. Much of that money was spent on purchasing raw materials from Australia to build all that pointless infrastructure.
But now, thanks to their crazy Covid lockdown, China has abruptly run out of cash. The Ponzi scheme is now fully exposed.
Prospects for Australian mineral exports to China are looking a little shaky.
We can only speculate why this public debt fuelled Chinese Ponzi scheme was allowed to grow to the point it threatens the stability of the Chinese state. I suspect it remained concealed for so long, because as local officials were promoted to central committee jobs on the basis of their fake economic achievements, their highest priority has been to conceal their personal financial malfeasance. They couldn’t expose their former underlings continuing the Ponzi scheme, without their own misdeeds being exposed. This has likely created a web of lies and concealment stretching all the way from local governments right up to the central committee.
In Western countries a free press usually uncovers and exposes such public sector financial disasters well before they become a national disaster, though arguably the Western press have been asleep on the job lately, at least when it comes to their handling of Democrat political scandals.
The dire financial distress in China has left Australia flailing. Most current federal and state governments are committed to massive expenditure on greening the Australia economy, but who in their right mind wants to lend money to a country which could be about to lose their biggest customer? As interest rates rise, as the Chinese economy falters, businesses across the country are tightening their belts in anticipation of the coming crash.
As for China, about the only move left in China’s playbook is to create a distraction big enough that people don’t notice their government has squandered all their money.
Whatever China decides to do, none of this bodes well for the Australian economy.
Of course the rapid approach of the Chinese export crisis hasn’t stopped our financially illiterate politicians from spending borrowed money like water, pushing forward with their Nut Zero plans. They’re still demolishing real power stations, offering what’s left of Australia’s manufacturing industry up like a grizzly Aztec sacrifice, perhaps in the hope the gods of green energy fantasies will smile on their mindless abasement.
h/t Nick – AFR has issued a correction: “Correction — An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that interim SEC CEO Chris Miller referred to “a large uptick in billed rates”. The correct reference should have been to “build rates”.” But given elsewhere in the article the AFR quotes an SEC estimate of $320 billion for Australia to transition to renewables, I don’t see how that changes anything. The $320 billion will have to be paid by consumers, either through increased bills or via increased taxes to service government borrowing.
That Australia, among the world’s largest uranium exporters, doesn’t rely on nuclear power astonishes those from the 30 countries where you’ll find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – including the French, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese. Another 15 countries are currently building 60 reactors among them. Nuclear power output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production. But not a lick of it in Australia.
With Australia’s grand wind and solar ‘transition’ in its death throes, getting rid of Australia’s idiotic ban on the use of nuclear power is top priority amongst anyone gifted with common sense, logic and reason.
BHP Billiton is one of Australia’s leading miners, and its mineral extraction operations include uranium mined at its Olympic Dam mine in Australia’s Far North (see above).
Known as the ‘Big Australian’, BHP has had its fair share of the costly and chaotic delivery of wind and solar in Australia’s renewable energy capital.
Back in September 2016, its Olympic Dam operation was shut for the best part of a fortnight after a vigourous spring storm resulted in the automatic shutdown of SA’s wind power generation fleet, plunging the entire State into darkness – for days in some places – and that cost hundreds of millions in lost production.
Earlier that year, BHP killed off plans to expand its Olympic Dam operations, simply because power costs in South Australia were running out of control – on one occasion BHP Billiton was forced to pay $2.57 million in a single day for electricity – that would normally cost them around $250,000 – due to a total and totally unpredictable collapse in wind power output.
So, if any corporate entity has a stake in obtaining reliable and affordable power, it would be BHP.
Hence BHP’s move to get rid of the ban and allow Australia to join every other country in the G20 that benefits from ever-reliable, safe and affordable nuclear power.
BHP pushes Anthony Albanese to remove “prohibitions” on nuclear energy in net zero transition The Australian Geoff Chambers 6 June 2023
Mining giant BHP is pushing the Albanese government to remove “prohibitions” on nuclear energy to help achieve 2030 and 2050 climate targets, amid fears that restricting power sources in the grid will hold back the clean energy transition.
The Australian can reveal BHP, one of the world’s biggest uranium miners, made the pitch to Treasury ahead of the May 9 budget.
BHP’s intervention came weeks ahead of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s budget reply speech in which he put nuclear power and gas at the heart of the Coalition’s future energy blueprint.
Mr Dutton’s declaration that in the 21st century “any sensible government must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix” was met with fierce opposition from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who rejected nuclear as an option.
BHP’s Olympic Dam mine in South Australia is home to the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world and the miner’s Xplor division in April announced it would expand its exploration focus beyond copper and nickel to prospective uranium and lithium projects.
BHP’s leadership in recent months has firmed up the company’s focus on uranium and the benefits of nuclear power, and told the government more must be done to protect energy security, affordability and decarbonisation.
“Reducing barriers to the energy transition … should include removing unnecessary restrictions on new sources of energy supply (such as existing prohibitions on nuclear energy),” BHP told Treasury.
The company also said the government must ensure “environmental approval and land access processes are effective at achieving environmental, heritage and social objectives while delivering timely and predictable outcomes for project proponents”.
In its pre-budget submission, BHP warned Treasury that federal and state governments continue to adopt divergent approaches on energy and climate policy, which “has the potential to increase transaction costs and discourage investment”.
“The government’s Rewiring the Nation initiative and Capacity Investment Scheme are useful in this regard but may not be enough to support a low-cost and orderly transition.”
The latest Department of Resources quarterly report in March projected uranium export values would double from $605m in 2021-22 to around $1.2bn by 2027-28.
“Uranium prices are forecast to lift, from $US51 a pound in 2022 to above $US60 a pound by 2028 (in real terms). This is expected to encourage stronger production from Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada and Namibia,” the report said.
“Australian exports are forecast to increase, from 4933 tonnes in 2021-22 to almost 8000 tonnes by 2027-28.”
The department’s Office of the Chief Economist forecasts higher global uranium demand as “nuclear deployments continue to expand”.
Increased demand is being reported in China, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
“With new reactor deployments growing, stronger investment in supply will likely be needed to avoid a supply deficit emerging towards the end of the outlook period. While uranium costs are only a small share of overall costs for nuclear power, the current price trajectory provides strong incentives to potential suppliers, and is likely to encourage greater investment in uranium production over time,” the report said.
“In the short term, this will likely be met through higher output from traditional suppliers. New output is expected from Australia’s reopened Honeymoon mine (from 2024).”
Speaking at The Australian’s strategic business forum in Adelaide last year, BHP chief technical officer Laura Tyler said nuclear energy “has to be a part of the conversation” and uranium should not be discounted as a baseload power source.
“I would like to think that Australia could consider it as part of the whole. When you think about where we will see reliable baseload, if you don’t have the storage … then you need the baseload, because you’ve got to keep hospitals and things running 24/7, you’ve got to be able to keep big business running 24/7,” Ms Tyler said.
“If you’re not prepared to do oil and gas or coal, then what is it going to be based on? There’s a very shoot-from-the-hip response to uranium, because it’s difficult to manage, it’s not as simple as maybe oil and gas but at the same time … its consequences can be big.”
With nuclear accounting for around 10 per cent of global electricity generation, rising to almost 20 per cent in advanced economies, the International Energy Agency says “nuclear power can play an important role in clean energy transitions”.
“Nuclear power is an important low-emission source of electricity. For those countries where it is accepted, it can complement renewables in cutting power sector emissions while also contributing to electricity security as a dispatchable power source,” the IEA says. “It is also capable of producing low-emission heat and hydrogen. More efforts are needed to get nuclear power on track with the net-zero emissions by 2050 scenario.” The Australian
Coalition backs BHP nuclear push The Australian Geoff Chambers 7 June 2023
Opposition energy and climate change spokesman Ted O’Brien says global businesses will shift investment away from Australia unless the nation embraces the potential of zero-emissions nuclear technologies.
In response to mining giant BHP’s pre-budget push for the government to remove prohibitions on nuclear energy, Mr O’Brien said Australia’s industrial and resources sectors that are desperately seeking to reduce emissions cannot be “ignored”.
“While BHP is Australian born, it brings a global perspective and is uniquely positioned to reflect on the most cost-effective and efficient technology options to reduce industrial emissions,” Mr O’Brien told The Australian.
“BHP makes it clear that global businesses are looking at Australia’s ‘unnecessary restrictions’ on zero-emissions nuclear energy as an inhibitor to innovation, investment and efficiency. The stark reality is that capital is fluid and moves around the world in search of better market conditions.”
In his post-budget reply speech last month, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton put nuclear power and gas at the heart of the Coalition’s future energy blueprint.
Mr Dutton is expected to develop gas and nuclear policies ahead of the 2025 election, pitting the Coalition’s energy plan against Anthony Albanese’s “renewables revolution”.
With high inflation driving up interest rates and Australians copping record energy bills, Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley on Wednesday said the government must implement an “affordable, reliable” plan.
“The policies they have on energy are not the policies we had, or would have,” Ms Ley said.
Mr O’Brien said many Australian businesses are “committed to reducing emissions, but are desperate for practical solutions that are cost-effective”.
“It’s no surprise that businesses are looking around the world at the role of zero-emissions nuclear energy in driving deep cuts to industrial emissions and wanting the same opportunity here in Australia,” he said.
Queensland Nationals senator and former resources minister Matt Canavan said he supported BHP for trying to “talk sense” to the government about removing barriers to nuclear energy. The Australian
Mixed signals on nuclear power stations will scuttle AUKUS submarine deal The Australian Ted O’Brien 6 June 2023
AUKUS will not succeed if the Australian government remains ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and the national security committee keeps sending mixed messages about our capability to manage nuclear technology.
AUKUS is Australia’s biggest military venture since World War II and the most complex manufacturing program we have ever embarked on, on par with the post-war automotive program and the Snowy Scheme.
AUKUS must succeed – the future of our nation and the stability and security of our region depends on it.
Putting this at risk is Anthony Albanese’s ideological opposition to the technology that lies at the heart of the AUKUS arrangement. That technology is nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors in submarines are smaller versions of the reactors used in today’s power plants and are similar in size to next-generation micro-reactors that soon will generate electricity in the US and Britain.
Both generate energy, although submarine reactors also enable propulsion. It is untenable for an Australian prime minister to oppose such technology.
Australia is to become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS deal, joining world heavyweights the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and India.
But there’s one enormous difference between these nations and us: they all have civil nuclear energy industries and we don’t.
Between them, these nations operate 273 nuclear power reactors and are busily constructing 39 more, while the size of their workforces range from 64,500 in Britain to 200,000 in France. These thriving civil nuclear industries aren’t a coincidence – they are integral to successful nuclear ecosystems in these nations.
Foundational skills in engineering, physics and mathematics are required, whether in the civil nuclear industry or in the nuclear submarine industry. Indeed, as I learnt on a recent trip to the US, many of those working in the civil nuclear industry are former submariners. Creating lifelong career paths, including post-service job opportunities for submariners who are highly trained and skilled in nuclear technology is how it works there.
The Royal Australian Navy’s six Collins-class boats each require a crew of more than 40, compared with the nuclear-propelled Virginia-class that demands a crew at least twice that size.
Australia will need a committed and capable workforce to operate its own fleet of nuclear-propelled submarines, a task that will be more difficult in the absence of a civil nuclear industry.
It’s not just about submariners, though. Although we will need some industrial assistance from our AUKUS partners, making AUKUS a success also will require an expansion of Australian industry and skills, especially with hundreds of thousands of components needed to build and maintain the submarines.
We need to enhance our own sovereign manufacturing capability, and not just for a one-off procurement job but ideally for a broader mix of industries that will leverage nuclear technology for decades to come.
Yet, despite the obvious contradiction, Albanese continues to oppose nuclear energy. The problem is bigger than the Prime Minister, however. There’s also a split in the national security committee, which he chairs.
The national security committee is Australia’s peak decision-making body on matters of national security and consists of the government’s most senior ministers. If there were something on which these ministers might all align, you would think it would be AUKUS.
But these ministers’ public statements suggest otherwise: just consider the video by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen last month, disparaging Australia’s competence in nuclear technology. His criticisms had the effect of undermining our standing among AUKUS partners. Bowen argued that Australia not only lacked the expertise to manage energy-generating nuclear reactors but also that it would take us decades to develop it. Yet, under AUKUS, Australia has assured our partners that we will achieve sovereign readiness to receive our first Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarine by 2032.
Bowen argued that Australia will struggle to store nuclear waste associated with nuclear reactors, ignoring the fact we already do. Australia has safely stored the nuclear waste from the Lucas Heights reactor since 1958.
Yet, under AUKUS, Australia has committed to manage all low and medium-level waste associated with the nuclear-powered submarines and to manage the permanent disposal of high-level spent fuel.
It is not in our national interest for such mixed messages to be sent to our AUKUS partners. In turning a blind eye to this issue, Albanese has allowed things to fester in Labor ranks.
Just last weekend, Queensland Labor’s state conference voted down a motion congratulating the Albanese government on AUKUS by 229 to 140. For AUKUS to succeed, the Prime Minister must lead.
To start, he should drop his opposition to nuclear energy, pull Bowen into line or remove him from the national security committee, and champion a pro-AUKUS motion at Labor’s national conference in August. The Australian
When Finland powered up its latest nuclear power plant in April wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant (above) is fully operational, generating 1,600 MW of electricity on demand (irrespective of the weather), and delivering 15% of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation.
So much for the wind and solar cult meme about nuclear power being ‘too expensive’.
No, the principal problem for rent-seekers chasing wind and solar subsidies is that nuclear power works, and works, and works. It doesn’t need batteries and it doesn’t need backup.
And, because it does not generate carbon dioxide emissions during the power generation process, it provides a complete answer to those worked up about man-made CO2 emissions.
And therein lies the problem for those seeking to profit from the wind and solar scam.
As The Australian’s Nick Cater reports, the wind and solar industries see nuclear as an existential threat, with very good reason.
‘Moral’ deflections show the anti-nuclear lobby is losing power The Australian Nick Cater 22 May 2023
More than 17 years have elapsed since Anthony Albanese gave a keynote speech to the Sydney University Labor Club ruling out nuclear power in the fight against climate change.
Nuclear power was capital-intensive and would take 12-15 years to come online, he argued. Instead, Australia should invest in what he called “the clean and proven alternatives”. “A wind turbine can take days to install,” he said, “a solar panel only hours … We need to begin to make cuts in emissions today, not in 15 years.”
The tens of billions of dollars that have been invested in wind and solar since 2006 are just a tiny down payment on the cost of meeting the Albanese government’s target of 82 per cent renewable energy capacity by 2030.
Wind and solar have proven to be a remarkably inefficient way of reducing emissions. On the weekend, wind and solar were generating just 12 per cent of the electrons flowing to customers in the eastern states. Another 12 per cent came from hydro. The rest came from sources environmentalists have cleverly rebranded as fossil fuel. The carbon intensity of the system was well above 750g/kWh for long periods of the day.
Which begs the question: How much larger would our carbon footprint be if an ambitious, headstrong inner-western Sydney MP had not decided to make cheap electoral capital (while leading an anti-nuclear scare campaign) against the Coalition in the run-up to the 2007 election?
What if he and then opposition leader Kevin Rudd had decided to follow the Finns who were, at that moment, placing an order for a 1.6GW French nuclear reactor?
The extraordinary delays in the construction of Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor have been an epic source of frustration for the Finns and an abundant source of joy for the nuclear-phobic green left. Yet all good things come to those who wait and Olkiluoto 3 finally went online in March.
On Sunday, nuclear was generating 42 per cent and hydro 23 per cent. Biomass, wind and imported hydro from Sweden made up the rest. Finland’s electricity system was 96 per cent emissions-free, a level Australia won’t reach until 2043 when the last coal generator shuts down under the plan drawn up by the Australian Energy Market Operator.
The escalation in the cost of Olkiluoto 3 from an original estimate of $5bn to $18bn was undeniably steep. Yet a 1.6GW modern nuclear reactor with a lifespan of 60 years is arguably better value for money than the $20bn or so the Albanese government is spending on new transmission lines to connect disparate sources of wind-dependent energy sometime in the future.
The Finns are reaping the returns on their investment right now. The carbon intensity of electricity to a customer in Helsinki is less than 50g/kWh, 15 times smaller than that of customers in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. Which should make us wonder how serious the Albanese government really is about climate change. Is it really the most important challenge the world faces, as it sometimes likes to tell us, or merely another way of showing it cares about voters spooked by warming planning?
Digital technology allows us to track the foolishness of Labor’s energy policy in real time. Electricitymaps.com reveals that hundreds of millions of electricity customers worldwide burn electricity to their hearts’ content with barely a pang of conscience.
Some, such as the 44,000 hardy Canadians in the Yukon, are blessed with the landscapes and precipitation that allow them to operate hydro around the clock. Others, such as the French, Slovenians, Belgians or Canadians in Ontario supplement hydro with nuclear.
While most countries have some wind and solar capacity, nowhere in the world is it relied upon as the mainstay as envisaged by the Australian Energy Market Operator’s plan. Countries that have made futile attempts to decarbonise without substantial hydro or nuclear baseload capacity have paid a heavy price. In Germany, Italy and Denmark electricity costs more than 80c per kWh, more than twice the rate Australian households pay, and five times more than the Canadians.
If, however, this really is a climate emergency, then the burning question is not which technology is cheapest, but which will do the job in the quickest possible time. A trickle of environmental activists has come to the conclusion nuclear must be part of the energy mix if we are going to get anywhere close to reaching the net-zero nirvana we’ve persuaded ourselves we can reach by 2050.
Finland’s Green Party became first the green party in the world to officially let go of anti-nuclearism last May when it reclassified nuclear as “sustainable energy”.
But Australia’s environmental activists stubbornly refuse to budge, and look certain to orchestrate a formidable campaign against the Coalition at the next federal election now that Peter Dutton has put small modular reactors on the agenda.
They are fast running out of fresh arguments, however, as the mild reaction to Dutton’s reply to the budget indicates. Greens MPs failed to turn up to last week’s Senate inquiry in which a series of energy and nuclear experts, with well over a century of experience between them, made a cogent case for lifting the state and federal moratorium on nuclear at the earliest opportunity.
The Albanese government may or may not take comfort from the joint submission to the inquiry by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and seven other environmental NGOs. It was standard fare: nuclear costs a bomb, takes too long and causes accidents like Chernobyl, which resulted in thousands of deaths.
No progressive argument is complete these days without a reference to First Nations people, and documents from Greenpeace and others suggest this is no exception. “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,” it asserts.
When activist movements start veering off on moral tangents it’s a sign they’ve given up arguing the facts. There will no doubt be more of this to come. The policy choice at the next election will be between a clean-energy future founded in practical reality or one infected by wishful thinking. The Australian
Meanwhile, in places where grown-ups are in charge, the move to build and invest in latest nuclear power generation technology is gathering pace. Westinghouse has announced the construction of 300MW nuclear reactors with enough juice to power 300,000 homes continuously, whatever the weather.
US firm unveils game-changing small nuclear reactor that can power 300,000 homes Interesting Engineering Baba Tamim 5 May 2023
US tech company, Westinghouse, has announced the launch of the AP300, a smaller version of its flagship AP1000 nuclear reactor, in an effort to extend access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy rises.
The AP300 nuclear reactor is scheduled to be operational in 2027 and will provide roughly one-third of the power of the flagship AP1000 reactor, according to an official press release by the firm on Thursday.
“The AP300 is the only small modular reactor offering available that is based on deployed, operating, and advanced reactor technology,” President and CEO of Westinghouse, Patrick Fragman, said in the statement.
“The launch of the AP300 SMR rounds out the Westinghouse portfolio of reactor technology, allowing us to deliver on the full needs of our customers globally, with a clear line of sight on schedule of delivery, and economics.”
Westinghouse’s decision marks a significant turning point in the nuclear industry’s effort to reinvent itself in response to climate change.
Nuclear fission reactor electricity produces no greenhouse gas emissions, and smaller nuclear reactors are less expensive to develop.
The AP300 is expected to cost around $1 billion per unit, compared to the AP1000’s anticipated cost of $6.8 billion.
It will produce about 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to the AP1000’s 1,200 megawatts, and power about 300,000 households.
AP300, a ‘game-changer’ technology Industrial companies consider smaller nuclear reactors as carbon-free heat sources because they are more adaptable and versatile.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must approve the AP300 before it can be made accessible to customers in the US by 2027, but Durham feels optimistic.
“We have absolute confidence, because the NRC has already licensed every bit of this technology,” Durham told CNBC.
Transmission lines are essentially exhausted in the United States. And small reactors can be connected to the electrical grid more efficiently.
New power sources frequently require an update in transmission capacity; thus, connecting them can take years.
It would be simpler to replace one coal plant with an AP300 nuclear reactor since it will generate nearly the same amount of power as a typical coal plant, said a CNBC report.
“Unlike the previous generation of nuclear power plants, which were only used by large integrated utilities, the sizes of the advanced reactors which range from microreactors of a half-megawatt to 300 megawatts or more,” Jeffrey S. Merrifield, a nuclear energy lawyer and former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNBC.
This “means that there is a significantly larger number of utilities that can utilize these technologies.”
The AP300 has the same security measures as the AP1000, said Durham. Both types of passive cooling systems are extremely important, and if the AP1000 had been in use at Fukushima, the incident would have been no issue.
“This is a game-changer technology,” he toldCNBC. “If the AP1000 had been in operation at Fukushima, it would have been a total non-event.”
The AP300 is an important step in extending access to nuclear electricity for the US market, even if there is still a strong demand for large reactors outside of the United States. Interesting Engineering
In 1904, the Tacoma Times published these two images to illustrate an article which was allegedly an interview with a retired mugger from Seattle. On the right, one mugger is restraining a victim while the second mugger goes through the victim’s pockets; on the left, two police officers approach. the illustrator’s signature appears to say “Landon”, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, fear of Covid is causing people to avoid climate friendly public transport. But there may be another explanation.
Car use zooms back, risking Australia’s climate targets
If the trend in car use continues, emission levels could soon draw level with pre-pandemic levels, which reached a height of 100.2 million tonnes in December 2019.
Professor Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at Australian National University, said major transport reform, including public, is a major hurdle on Australia’s path to net zero emissions by 2050.
…
“It will not do for governments to simply say that people should take public transport,” Jotzo said. Australia’s relatively low share in public transport use compared to other developed nations was largely driven by the fact infrastructure had not kept pace with population growth and demand, he said.
“To get people out of their cars and onto public transport it needs to be very attractive, it needs to be comfortable and more importantly, it needs to be frequent, it needs to be reliable and it needs to be affordable.”
In my community there is growing and widespread fear of youth crime, opportunistic theft and random violence.
I was at a community meeting last Saturday, where lot of people attributed this perception of rising street crime to family breakdown during the Covid lockdown, and the unwillingness of Aussie politicians to lock up underage thugs.
Even more disturbing there may have been a rise in organised street crime. An attendee at the community meeting, who walks his dog late at night, mentioned that he saw teams of underage criminals casing houses and testing locks, while their adult “handler” staying safe in his automobile, letting the drug addicted kids take the risks of actually committing the crimes.
Since underage thugs in Australia are rarely locked up, unless they actually kill someone, this alleged system of organised theft cleverly plays the system, minimising the risk to the adult organisers, and minimising the risk of anyone involved receiving a significant jail sentence. The kids who commit the crimes are likely paid in drugs, while the real criminals reap enormous profits from selling the stolen goods.
Australians don’t have a right to bear arms, even non-lethal deterrents, so older people especially are helpless if a drug crazed bull strong teenage thug decides it’s their turn to contribute to his addiction. Even worse if the drug addict is part of an organised criminal team, and can call on his drug crazed buddies to join the assault if anyone resists.
Given the widespread fear of crime, the lack of protection, and the unwillingness of politicians to lock up the mostly underage criminals at the bottom of these alleged crime networks, there is no mystery why lots of people these days are avoiding public transport, and older people especially are taking personal security very seriously indeed.
I’ve been personally touched by this crime wave, though thankfully nobody close to me has been hurt. A few months ago my tires along with the tires of at least 20 other automobiles in my area were stabbed. One householder who walked out at the wrong moment was menaced by a knife. The police called me a few weeks ago, and said they identified the criminal from security camera footage and arrested him, but there was nothing they could do. They locked him up, but he was bailed the following Monday, and would likely not see any further jail time. Every police officer I spoke to in relation to this case expressed their frustration and helplessness, their families are under threat as much as anyone else. They go through the motions, but the criminals they lock up are back on the street in hours or days. All this makes me wonder how long those police officers can live with believing their job is pointless, before they either quiet quit, or find something more rewarding to do with their life.
If politicians want the public to use more public transport for whatever reason, addressing crime and personal security concerns might be a good start.
Make electricity unreliable and unaffordable and you’ll soon turn your economy to ashes. Australia is on the brink of a major recession, and energy costs are front and centre.
Power prices will jump by 25 to 30% next month following the closure of yet another perfectly operable 2,000MW coal-fired power plant. Since the Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target was ramped up by the Labor government in 2010, Australians have been hit with double-digit percentage increases in their power bills every year since.
Households are being hammered by rising interest rates and power bills that they simply cannot afford.
Then there are energy-hungry industries, like mineral processing, which are all but done for. Aluminium smelters will be the first to go, wiping out thousands of well-paid jobs in the bargain.
Peta Credlin taps into comments made recently by Peter Day, a director of one of Australia’s last remaining smelters. Day’s brutal analysis: Australia is well on the road to de-industrialisation, thanks to its idiotic energy policy.
‘We can have lower emissions or a first world economy – not both’ Sky News Peta Credlin 30 May 2023
Alumina Limited Director Peter Day had some sad home truths on what is Australia’s counterproductive energy policy, says Sky News host Peta Credlin.
Mr Day addressed his worries towards established industries that rely on coal and gas and also the government’s lack of acknowledgement towards the inefficient backup capacities of renewable energy.
“In plain language terms, the Alumina boss is telling us that we are on a rapid road to de-industrialisation,” Ms Credlin said.
“At some stage, we will have to wake up to the fact that we can have much lower emissions or a first world economy – but not both.”
Transcript
Peta Credlin: It’s rare to find a business leader today talking about business and not virtue signalling on the voice or climate change or diversity and inclusion. But yesterday on issues impacting his business, the chairman of Alumina, one of our biggest manufacturing businesses that runs the Portland smelter in Victoria and an Alumina refinery in Western Australia, Peter Day, had some sad home truths on Australia’s energy policy.
The Alumina chairman pointed out that, and I quote, “The country’s now taking steps that will challenge,” I note that word challenge, “that will challenge many of its established industries that are dependent on coal or gas. Having power that’s available 24/7,” he said, “is a particular challenge. Transition plans in Australia,” he said, that is plans for the transition to renewables are, and I quote, “currently not addressing the issues of backup capacity adequately given battery technologies do not currently provide a viable long duration back-up solution.”
“For example,” he said, “the largest battery currently in Australia could power half the Portland smelter for a maximum of an hour. Further,” he said, “actions to reduce carbon emissions that threaten Australia’s value adding industries,” which he said, “are already in the world’s lowest emissions quartile are counterproductive.”
That’s right. Counterproductive. And he said we’ve just produce even more emissions in countries that aren’t as fastidious about emissions as we are here. Now, this is the chairman of a business that over the past five years has paid almost $3 billion in taxes and royalties and nearly 4 billion in wages, stating that without continued access to competitively priced fossil fuels, gas in this particular case, this value adding venture would cease. In other words, we would cease to be a country with heavy industry.
Day said, and I’ll quote him again, “Current plans for Australia’s energy transition threatened to create immense uncertainty, immense uncertainty on the availability and cost of future energy supply.” So in plain language terms, the Alumina boss is telling us that we’re on a rapid road to de-industrialization. Like the alarm of speculation about future weather events or hysteria about the Barrier Reef, his words are buried in the business section of just one newspaper.
As you know, I don’t oppose reducing emissions as reasonable enough, but not in ways that impose massive extra costs on consumers and ways that weaken us compared to places like China, which never put emissions reduction ahead of economic and military strength. At some stage, we’ll have to wake up to the fact that we can have much lower emissions or a first world economy, but not both. Let’s hope our leaders will soon wake up to these too and ensure that we don’t lose any more coal-fired power until there’s a reliable alternative in place and that we green light the new gas fields we need for ourselves, and of course, the allies that depend on Australia. Sky News
Aluminium smelter workers are all set to ‘transition’ to the dole queue.
The clowns have taken over the circus and are firmly in charge of energy policy, which in its design and implementation makes a three-ringed circus look like a Benedictine Monastery.
It’s said you shouldn’t put down to conspiracy what can be chalked up to incompetence. Well, with Australian power prices rising at double-digit rates every year since Labor ramped up the Federal government’s Renewable Energy Target in 2009, with a further 25-30% jump in power prices set to bite next month, and with routine power rationing used as ‚demand management‘ – whenever wind and solar output collapses coincide with peak demand – it’s starting to look like a grand conspiracy of incompetence. At its head sits Chris Bowen, Labor’s Energy Minister. His take on Australia’s energy crisis is positively delusional.
Rocketing power prices are crushing households and driving businesses to the wall, but Bowen has been pushing the line that his wind and solar transition is going according to plan and that retail power prices have actually decreased. Yes, that’s right the Clown in Chief is claiming that Australian power prices are on the way down.
A clearly gobsmacked Chris Kenny had this report on Sky News about Bowen and his all-star clown show.
Labor and the Greens ‘renewables push’ causes power bills to top $2,000 annually Sky News Chris Kenny 31 May 2023
Sky News host Chris Kenny says Labor and the Greens’ “renewables push” causes average annual electricity bills to increase by more than double the price Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to reduce them by.
“Average prices have already well and truly topped $2,000 a year, yeah all that wind and solar and a big battery to boot, the stuff Labor and the Greens tell us is the cheapest power available … tell us again how this renewables push is the way of the future,” Mr Kenny said.
Transcript
Chris Kenny: Now, I don’t need to tell you about power prices, do I? I mean, I showed you last week, average annual electricity bills have shot up by more than twice as much as Labor promised to reduce them. Average household bills vary from state to state, but they’re near enough to $2,000 a year now, that’s looking like the norm. In South Australia, where they have more renewable energy than any other state, they boast about this, average prices have already well and truly topped $2,000 a year. Yeah, all that wind and solar and a big battery to boot, the stuff Labor and the Greens tell us is the cheapest power available and the crow eaters have got themselves the most expensive electricity in the country, and they had their first statewide blackout a few years back too. Tell us again how this renewables push is the way of the future?
Just extraordinary, isn’t it? The nonsense we’re fed by the Albanese Labor government on electricity when the facts, the reality we are living is entirely different. The Coalition attacked the government on power prices in parliament again today. And let me show you the most arrogant and delusional response from the climate and energy minister Chris „Blackout“ Bowen. He boasted about Labor’s interventions in the coal and gas markets and the effect that they’re having on power prices. And he attacked the shadow minister, Ted O’Brien, for not giving enough credit to Labor for these interventions.
Chris Bowen: The Member for Fairfax went on to say, so there’s no evidence here that the intervention itself was the thing that got prices down, no evidence that the intervention itself was the thing that got prices down. This creates a considerable mystery. What was it? Was it the Coronation, Mr. Speaker? Was it the final episode of Succession perhaps? No spoilers? Was it Sweden winning the Eurovision Song Contest?
Chris Kenny: That got prices down? He actually said, got prices down. They’ve already gone up by 20 or 30% since the election, and they’re going up another 25 to 30% in July. And the minister in charge of energy claims he got prices down? This is delusional. He talks like this while, around the country, people are hurting.
Ted O’Brien: You’ve got the exact same people who right now are sitting around kitchen tables as families saying, „Well, how can we pay all the bills? Can we go on that holiday? Are we okay with the education fees? Can we turn on the heater?“
Chris Kenny: Yeah, I’ll have more from Ted O’Brien later. But the trouble for the country is that the federal Labor government is only making all this worse. They’ve been allowing coal fire generators to close, they’re building transmission lines all over the country, encouraging offshore wind and more solar. All of this will just add to our costs in the future and undermine our energy reliability. This is madness. Of course, this is national self-harm. And the crowning glory, of course, is the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. This is a green dream turned into a taxpayer-funded nightmare. Labor didn’t start it, the credit for that has to go to Malcolm Turnbull, who was desperate for some kind of climate and energy icon when he was Prime Minister.
Malcolm Turnbull: These are big dreams in these mountains, real courage, a belief in the future, a confidence in Australia. And what we are announcing today is our commitment to ensure that we build on that confidence, we continue with that courage. The projects that we are talking about today, which will add at least 50% to the capacity of the Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme. These projects were designed and engineered decades ago by the men and women who built this. That capacity was there, all that was missing was leadership and money, and my government has both.
Chris Kenny: Leadership and money, yeah! Honestly, the reckless grandstanding with our money, it’s our money. Five years on, and that project is literally stuck in a hole, it’s years behind schedule and already way over budget. It’ll now cost about $20 billion, including transmission lines. And get this, it’s really just a battery, it won’t produce a single watt of additional electricity. In fact, it’s a net consumer of electricity, it just stores hydro for when we need it. Yet Labor is ploughing on with this nonsense. And that’s the thing here, Labor can’t be blamed for all the climate and energy madness in this country, Coalition governments, state and federal, have gone way too far down this path themselves. But Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen are doubling down, when they should be pulling back, they’re doubling down. The first thing they should do is scrap Snowy 2.0. Sky News
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
