JOHN C.’s Post

The antipodeans Sir Ernest Rutherford "father of nuclear physics" and Sir Mark Oliphant, "Opposer of the fission bomb" were the first experimental demonstrators of nuclear fusion. Why then are the Australian Government and the Federal Opposition not working to get it developed in Australia and bring it back home? New Zealand has, so why not Australia? Interesting articles about Nuclear and I know you haven't looked at Fusion. So let's look at the nuclear or Fission option versus Fusion 1. Fission (Nuclear) Not able to be licenced. https://lnkd.in/gbm2t5uU 2. Authorities have the power to grant licenses for fusion, which is not explicitly covered by the Nuclear Act or the ARPANSA definition. https://lnkd.in/gjKFABpy The above ARPANSA link defines nuclear as fission—no mention of Fusion. 3. A fission (Nuclear)reactor without fissile fuel is a building. 4. A fusion reactor without fissile fuel is a fusion reactor building 5, Fissile (Nuclear) fuel availability and the future cost is a concern, especially for economists and users Dittmar, M. (2011). The End of Cheap Uranium. ArXiv. /abs/1106.3617 Even the UN has identified this, so why does the Fission(Nuclear) industry persist in denying its death like fossil fuels https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr 6. Should the focus in Australia be on nuclear fission advancement or the promotion of fusion technology? 7, Fission (Nuclear) is only at present in 39 countries out of 189. 8. Is Dutton doing a Menzies and wanting a loophole to get fission (Nuclear) weapons to start with for the subs? 9. Australia still has no high-level radiation waste storage facility 10. Helion Fusion has committed to having its fusion version working in 2028 11. The FIA (Fusion Industry Association) has postulated that commercial power fusion will be available in the 2030s. 12. In its fusion conference report in 2023, the IAEA postulated that all International nuclear (Fission) Laws like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty do not consider fusion, so it seems it can be built in Australia now. 13. Fusion is also being developed "Small Modular Fusion Reactors" like Zap Energy and Avalanche Energy. 14. HB11 and the UNSW Tokamak project have positioned Australia prominently in the trillion-dollar international fusion industry. Instead of relying on fission with a limited lifetime, wouldn't it be preferable to support Australian renewables, batteries, and hydrogen energy generators and back them up with a fusion power plant? This would eliminate the traditional waste problem while still providing medical isotopes and advancements in medical technology like MRIs. Let's focus on creating a sustainable future for Australia instead of perpetuating pollution and leading to an energy crisis. https://lnkd.in/ekakyifA

The antipodeans Sir Ernest Rutherford "father of nuclear physics" and Sir Mark Oliphant, "Opposer of the fission bomb" were the first experimental demonstrators of nuclear fusion. Why then are the Australian Government and the Federal Opposition not working to get it developed in Australia and bring it back home? New Zealand has, so why not Australia? Interesting articles about Nuclear and I know you haven't looked at Fusion. So let's look at the nuclear or Fission option versus Fusion 1. Fission (Nuclear) Not able to be licenced. https://lnkd.in/gbm2t5uU 2. Authorities have the power to grant licenses for fusion, which is not explicitly covered by the Nuclear Act or the ARPANSA definition. https://lnkd.in/gjKFABpy The above ARPANSA link defines nuclear as fission—no mention of Fusion. 3. A fission (Nuclear)reactor without fissile fuel is a building. 4. A fusion reactor without fissile fuel is a fusion reactor building 5, Fissile (Nuclear) fuel availability and the future cost is a concern, especially for economists and users Dittmar, M. (2011). The End of Cheap Uranium. ArXiv. /abs/1106.3617 Even the UN has identified this, so why does the Fission(Nuclear) industry persist in denying its death like fossil fuels https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr 6. Should the focus in Australia be on nuclear fission advancement or the promotion of fusion technology? 7, Fission (Nuclear) is only at present in 39 countries out of 189. 8. Is Dutton doing a Menzies and wanting a loophole to get fission (Nuclear) weapons to start with for the subs? 9. Australia still has no high-level radiation waste storage facility 10. Helion Fusion has committed to having its fusion version working in 2028 11. The FIA (Fusion Industry Association) has postulated that commercial power fusion will be available in the 2030s. 12. In its fusion conference report in 2023, the IAEA postulated that all International nuclear (Fission) Laws like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty do not consider fusion, so it seems it can be built in Australia now. 13. Fusion is also being developed "Small Modular Fusion Reactors" like Zap Energy and Avalanche Energy. 14. HB11 and the UNSW Tokamak project have positioned Australia prominently in the trillion-dollar international fusion industry. Instead of relying on fission with a limited lifetime, wouldn't it be preferable to support Australian renewables, batteries, and hydrogen energy generators and back them up with a fusion power plant? This would eliminate the traditional waste problem while still providing medical isotopes and advancements in medical technology like MRIs. Let's focus on creating a sustainable future for Australia instead of perpetuating pollution and leading to an energy crisis. https://lnkd.in/ekakyifA

The antipodeans Sir Ernest Rutherford "father of nuclear physics" and Sir Mark Oliphant, "Opposer of the fission bomb" were the first experimental demonstrators of nuclear fusion. Why then are the Australian Government and the Federal Opposition not working to get it developed in Australia and bring it back home? New Zealand has, so why not Australia? Interesting articles about Nuclear and I know you haven't looked at Fusion. So let's look at the nuclear or Fission option versus Fusion 1. Fission (Nuclear) Not able to be licenced. https://lnkd.in/gbm2t5uU 2. Authorities have the power to grant licenses for fusion, which is not explicitly covered by the Nuclear Act or the ARPANSA definition. https://lnkd.in/gjKFABpy The above ARPANSA link defines nuclear as fission—no mention of Fusion. 3. A fission (Nuclear)reactor without fissile fuel is a building. 4. A fusion reactor without fissile fuel is a fusion reactor building 5, Fissile (Nuclear) fuel availability and the future cost is a concern, especially for economists and users Dittmar, M. (2011). The End of Cheap Uranium. ArXiv. /abs/1106.3617 Even the UN has identified this, so why does the Fission(Nuclear) industry persist in denying its death like fossil fuels https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr 6. Should the focus in Australia be on nuclear fission advancement or the promotion of fusion technology? 7, Fission (Nuclear) is only at present in 39 countries out of 189. 8. Is Dutton doing a Menzies and wanting a loophole to get fission (Nuclear) weapons to start with for the subs? 9. Australia still has no high-level radiation waste storage facility 10. Helion Fusion has committed to having its fusion version working in 2028 11. The FIA (Fusion Industry Association) has postulated that commercial power fusion will be available in the 2030s. 12. In its fusion conference report in 2023, the IAEA postulated that all International nuclear (Fission) Laws like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty do not consider fusion, so it seems it can be built in Australia now. 13. Fusion is also being developed "Small Modular Fusion Reactors" like Zap Energy and Avalanche Energy. 14. HB11 and the UNSW Tokamak project have positioned Australia prominently in the trillion-dollar international fusion industry. Instead of relying on fission with a limited lifetime, wouldn't it be preferable to support Australian renewables, batteries, and hydrogen energy generators and back them up with a fusion power plant? This would eliminate the traditional waste problem while still providing medical isotopes and advancements in medical technology like MRIs. Let's focus on creating a sustainable future for Australia instead of perpetuating pollution and leading to an energy crisis. https://lnkd.in/ekakyifA

The United States, our allies, and partners absolutely need a viable land leg of the strategic triad. The strategic forces of the US underpin our security and that of our allies and partners. Russia and PRC will be watching what we do next and whether we remain committed to nuclear deterrence and the stabilizing effect that a large, geographically dispersed IC force provides.

The Australian Government has selected BAE Systems and ASC Pty Ltd to build Australia's new fleet of nuclear powered submarines in the latest significant development in the AUKUS trilateral security pact between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. BAE Systems and ASC Pty Ltd will now bring together their complementary skills, expertise and capabilities under a collaborative arrangement in Australia, ultimately leading to the establishment of a long-term, incorporated Joint Venture. Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, and UK Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, announced the news in Australia, marking the next step in the pathway for Australia to build and operate its own nuclear powered submarines. Find the details here: Australia selects BAE Systems and ASC to build sovereign nuclear powered submarines | BAE Systems

South Korea and the United States conducted their first table-top exercise, "Iron Mace 24," focused on integrating South Korea's conventional forces with U.S. nuclear capabilities, aimed at enhancing responses to North Korea's nuclear threats. The exercise, held at Camp Humphreys, lasted three days and followed the signing of a joint guidelines document on nuclear deterrence. Participants, including officials from South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Forces Korea, discussed strategies to strengthen extended deterrence, which involves the U.S. commitment to defend its allies. The exercise comes amidst North Korea's increasing ballistic missile development, prompting the allies to continue their collaborative efforts to bolster deterrence mechanisms established under the Nuclear Consultative Group guidelines. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #SouthKorea Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/g8DCUj42

The antipodeans Sir Ernest Rutherford "father of nuclear physics" and Sir Mark Oliphant, "Opposer of the fission bomb" were the first experimental demonstrators of nuclear fusion. Why then are the Australian Government and the Federal Opposition not working to get it developed in Australia and bring it back home? New Zealand has, so why not Australia? Interesting articles about Nuclear and I know you haven't looked at Fusion. So let's look at the nuclear or Fission option versus Fusion 1. Fission (Nuclear) Not able to be licenced. https://lnkd.in/gbm2t5uU 2. Authorities have the power to grant licenses for fusion, which is not explicitly covered by the Nuclear Act or the ARPANSA definition. https://lnkd.in/gjKFABpy The above ARPANSA link defines nuclear as fission—no mention of Fusion. 3. A fission (Nuclear)reactor without fissile fuel is a building. 4. A fusion reactor without fissile fuel is a fusion reactor building 5, Fissile (Nuclear) fuel availability and the future cost is a concern, especially for economists and users Dittmar, M. (2011). The End of Cheap Uranium. ArXiv. /abs/1106.3617 Even the UN has identified this, so why does the Fission(Nuclear) industry persist in denying its death like fossil fuels https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr 6. Should the focus in Australia be on nuclear fission advancement or the promotion of fusion technology? 7, Fission (Nuclear) is only at present in 39 countries out of 189. 8. Is Dutton doing a Menzies and wanting a loophole to get fission (Nuclear) weapons to start with for the subs? 9. Australia still has no high-level radiation waste storage facility 10. Helion Fusion has committed to having its fusion version working in 2028 11. The FIA (Fusion Industry Association) has postulated that commercial power fusion will be available in the 2030s. 12. In its fusion conference report in 2023, the IAEA postulated that all International nuclear (Fission) Laws like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty do not consider fusion, so it seems it can be built in Australia now. 13. Fusion is also being developed "Small Modular Fusion Reactors" like Zap Energy and Avalanche Energy. 14. HB11 and the UNSW Tokamak project have positioned Australia prominently in the trillion-dollar international fusion industry. Instead of relying on fission with a limited lifetime, wouldn't it be preferable to support Australian renewables, batteries, and hydrogen energy generators and back them up with a fusion power plant? This would eliminate the traditional waste problem while still providing medical isotopes and advancements in medical technology like MRIs. Let's focus on creating a sustainable future for Australia instead of perpetuating pollution and leading to an energy crisis. https://lnkd.in/ekakyifA

BAE Systems PLC (LSE:BA.) will make Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines for the AUKUS programme as part of a partnership that the government said "could be worth billions of pounds", including on engines made by Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.). The deal, where the FTSE 100 company will work with Australian specialist submarine builder ASC, with the first boats aimed to be launched in the late 2030s. It follows "months of negotiations" and is "a monumental success" for the British defence industry, the Ministry of Defence said in a statement. BAE Systems have been at the heart of the UK’s submarine enterprise for generations and will bring their experience and excellence to deliver this important submarine for Australia. Elements of the supply chain were also signed off as part of the deal, including Rolls-Royce providing the nuclear propulsion plants. More at #Proactive #ProactiveInvestors #LSE #BA. http://ow.ly/TSr5105mPhK

The UK Government last week unveiled its Defence Nuclear Command Paper outlining the full spectrum of major programs and relationships with industry and international partners and its approach to investing in and maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The announcement follows the UK Prime Minister declaring a ‘national endeavour’ to secure the future of the UK’s thriving defence nuclear industry. The Defence Nuclear Command Paper sets out how the UK Government will continue to: * Sustain the UK’s fleet of nuclear powered, conventionally armed, submarines – complete the build of the Astute class and design the next generation SSN-AUKUS fleet, involving collaboration as part of the AUKUS trilateral partnership. * Sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent for as long as it is required - maintaining the current in-service Vanguard fleet and sovereign warhead, while progressing with the new Dreadnought Class submarines. * Recruit the skills of the future – with a clear plan to expand the nuclear workforce. * Renew and upgrade key infrastructure and Naval Bases – with an additional £3 billion invested across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise to 2024/25. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dYFDtF2H

The AUK part of AUKUS has been strengthened by the new Australia-UK defence agreement. The deal requires “consultation” about emerging threats and allows for better troop hosting and intelligence sharing. It’s as close as you can get to a mutual defence pact without being one. With fears about the future US commitment to AUKUS, the deal is a reminder that the UK remains a serious nuclear power which is committed to maintaining and improving its alliance capabilities and commitments. And who allies can rely on for dependability and stability in an ever-changing world.