We have received belated advice of the death on 2 July 2018 of Allen Keith (Big Al) Wheatley at the age of 71. Big Al was a National Serviceman who served with the Detachment, 131st Divisional Locating Battery in Vietnam as part of the Arty Tac team from September 1969 until June 1970.
RIP Allen Keith Wheatley.
Peter Bruce, OAM
Obituary Resource Officer
RAAHC
pjbruce8@bigpond.net.au
We have received advice of the death recently in Adelaide of Paul Allan (Bluey) Coppock. He was 75. Bluey was a National Serviceman who served in Vietnam initially with 1st Field Regiment and later, 4th Field Regiment from January 1970 until January 1971.
No other details are available at this stage.
RIP Paul (Bluey) Coppock.
Peter Bruce, OAM
Obituary Resource Officer
RAAHC
pjbruce8@bigpond.net.au
Australia showcased its F-35A in Indonesia for the first time during the Bali International Air Show at I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport from 18 to 21 September. Australian aircraft and personnel attended, including Wing Commander Phil Eldridge, who met with Indonesian Air Force Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal M. Tonny Harjono.
Defence stated, “Australia’s participation highlights the deepening strategic partnership with Indonesia.” The F-35 was accompanied by a German Air Force Airbus A400M.
The air show, organized by Indonesia’s Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation, and the Indonesia Air Force, attracted participation from 100 companies and delegations from over 35 countries. Major aerospace and defense companies like Airbus, Boeing, Dassault Aviation, and others were present.
Minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan emphasized Indonesia’s growing aviation industry, projecting a 5% annual fleet growth and positioning the country as the fourth-largest aviation market by 2037. The show featured 16 military and commercial aircraft, including the F-16, Sukhoi Su-27, and C-130J Super Hercules.
China’s naval ambitions have suffered a major blow after one of its newest nuclear-powered attack submarines sank earlier this year. The incident occurred at a shipyard near Wuhan in late May or early June and has remained largely concealed by Chinese authorities, adding to the country’s ongoing struggles.
The ill-fated submarine, the first of a new class of Chinese nuclear-powered vessels, was undergoing its final equipping before its planned launch at sea when the accident occurred. The exact details remain unclear, but reports indicate that large floating cranes were deployed in early June to salvage the submarine from the riverbed. The situation is a significant embarrassment for the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), the entity responsible for constructing the sub.
The vessel’s damage will take months to repair, delaying its deployment and dealing a blow to China’s aspirations to modernize and expand its nuclear submarine fleet.
The sinking of the submarine has fuelled criticism of corruption and inefficiency within the Chinese military and defence industry. As one of the first of its class, this submarine was part of China’s broader effort to challenge U.S. naval dominance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The setback hampers these goals, not only delaying the expansion of China’s submarine force but also raising questions about the reliability of its defence manufacturing processes.
There are additional concerns regarding the potential for nuclear leaks and environmental consequences, given the nature of the vessel. While China has not released any official information on this front, the possibility of radiation hazards has raised alarm among analysts.
For the United States, the incident serves as a moment of both caution and reflection. The Pentagon considers China its principal long-term “pacing challenge” as it aims to keep up with China’s growing military might. This submarine mishap, however, reveals weaknesses in China’s defence infrastructure, potentially slowing its progress toward becoming a dominant maritime power. The U.S. has pointed to the incident as evidence of corruption and systemic issues plaguing China’s defence industry, giving it room to maintain its technological edge in undersea warfare.
Despite the setback for China, U.S. officials remain vigilant. The long-term threat posed by China’s expanding military capabilities continues to shape the U.S. defence strategy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
The sinking of submarines during construction is not unique to China. In 1969, the U.S. Navy faced a similar disaster when the USS Guitarro, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, sank at a shipyard in California due to construction errors. It took 32 months to fully repair and commission the vessel, a timeline that China’s military may face as it works to restore its sunken submarine.
While such setbacks are rare, they highlight the complexities of submarine design and construction. In both cases, these incidents delayed naval expansion plans, embarrassed government officials, and caused broader public scrutiny.
The sinking of China’s newest nuclear-powered attack submarine marks a significant setback in its naval ambitions. As the country seeks to grow its military influence, this incident underscores the challenges it faces in achieving its objectives. For now, the world’s focus remains on how China addresses this internal crisis and how it will impact the geopolitical landscape of maritime power in the coming years.
The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, dormant for the past five years, is set to be reactivated following a significant deal between Constellation Energy and Microsoft. Under a new 20-year agreement, the plant will supply 835 megawatts of power to the Pennsylvania grid, primarily to support Microsoft’s growing AI operations. The economic impact of this deal is substantial, as it will create 3,400 jobs and contribute a staggering $16 billion to the state’s economy.
This news comes amidst a backdrop of historical controversy. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 has long been a rallying point for nuclear energy opponents. However, the facts surrounding the incident are often overshadowed by fearmongering. Despite the severity of the event, the death toll at Three Mile Island was precisely zero, and there were no recorded cases of nuclear contamination in the surrounding area. This fact is critical as it counters decades of negative narratives about nuclear energy.
Over the past 70 years, the global death toll from nuclear power accidents stands at 33 confirmed fatalities. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster resulted in the deaths of two plant workers on the night of the explosion and an additional 28 emergency workers who succumbed to acute radiation syndrome in the weeks that followed. The other major incident occurred at Fukushima in 2011, where one plant worker died from acute radiation syndrome and two more died from heart attacks, likely linked to the stress of the event. These numbers stand in stark contrast to the catastrophic accidents associated with other forms of energy production.
When comparing nuclear energy to other energy sources, its safety record is unparalleled. With just 0.0011 deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity generated, nuclear is vastly safer than solar energy (0.02 deaths per TWh), wind (0.04 deaths), hydro (1.3 deaths), and biomass, which leads the toll with a staggering 4.8 deaths per TWh. For context, more people perished in the Hindenburg disaster (36 deaths) than in all nuclear power accidents combined.
As debates about energy policy heat up, it’s essential for policymakers to look at the facts. Nuclear energy is not only one of the most reliable ways to meet growing energy demands, but it’s also one of the safest. The reactivation of Three Mile Island symbolizes a renewed commitment to nuclear energy’s role in the future of sustainable power generation.
Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen would do well to heed the lessons of history. His focus on promoting hydrogen as a clean energy solution is commendable, but it’s worth remembering that hydrogen, regardless of whether it is green, blue, brown, or pink, remains a highly flammable and potentially explosive gas. The risks associated with hydrogen, in terms of safety and handling, are well-documented and should not be ignored in the rush to embrace this alternative fuel source.
In light of these facts, nuclear power stands out as a crucial part of the energy mix, offering both safety and reliability in an uncertain future. The return of Three Mile Island is a testament to nuclear energy’s enduring viability and its role in powering the world’s most advanced technologies.
The Impact of Wind Farms in Queensland: Costs, Numbers, and Environmental Considerations
There are currently 3,365 wind turbines proposed for Queensland, delivering a nameplate capacity of approximately 22,874 MW. This number does not include additional wind farms that are in the planning stages but lack specific turbine quantities. For example, the proposed Proserpine Wind Farm will have over 200 turbines, making it reasonable to estimate that the total number of turbines planned in the state is already over 4,000.
However, given that wind turbines typically operate at a capacity factor of around 25%, we would need to double the number of turbines to approximately 6,600 in order to ensure electricity supply during summer nights when wind may be available. If Queensland experiences several windless nights, even with the proposed Eungella Pumped Hydro project, the grid could only sustain power for a limited number of hours.
To achieve true Net Zero, which involves removing carbon emissions from agriculture and the transport fleet, the state may need to install over 20,000 turbines. If there’s no wind, additional gas plants would be required to maintain energy supply. Furthermore, should Queensland pursue theoretical hydrogen energy, another 10,000 to 25,000 turbines may be needed—provided there is enough land with consistent wind conditions to support them.
While some wind farms in the southern part of the state are situated on cleared or mostly cleared land, many of the wind farms proposed from Gladstone northward are located in areas of high biodiversity. These locations are often characterized by untouched, rugged, and remote topography. Notably, the Chalumbin Wind Farm remains a point of contention, as it could reappear in the planning stages depending on who secures transmission capacity first.
The future of Queensland’s energy transition will showcase the trade-offs between renewable energy expansion and the preservation of some of the state’s best high-elevation refugia forests, especially in the areas north of Gladstone.
Cost Considerations: Each wind turbine can range from $3 million to $4 million, meaning that the current proposal of 3,365 turbines represents an investment between $10 billion and $13.5 billion. If the number of turbines increases to 6,600 or more, the total cost could climb to over $20 billion, with further investments needed if additional turbines are required for hydrogen production.
CLICK LINK to view the video
G’day All, you’ll note Diggers Cup is currently scheduled for 26 April which the club is trying to change. If it is not changed, I’ve told them it is highly unlikely KilDigs will be available to support. I will advise any changes. The NEXT MEETING IS Thursday 10 October – please advise your availability
Cheers
Rod Slater
As an elder, I have watched politics in Australia since I first voted at the age of 21 when in the Australian army and my interest increased after I retired at 55 and purchased my first PC in 1995.
Since arriving in Australia in my mid-teens there were, if I remember correctly, three political parties, Menzies Conservative-Liberal, the Country Party also conservative (non-urban voters) and the Australian Labor Party a socialist/communist with the Roman Catholic Church very much involved. There were strong religious opinions between the Catholics and other Christian churches after WW2 (1948). The Liberal and Country Party was strong until December 1972, when, the Labor Party under the Prime Ministership of Whitlam was voted in.
Australia was introduced to modern socialism! In hindsight 1972 was the tipping point for Australia and the introduction to disruptive unstable governance for Australia as socialist governments nationally and across all states and territories engulfed the nation, especially in the 21st century.
I believe that politics in the English-speaking nation has now become very toxic between conservatism and socialism.
I have a fundamental understanding of socialism and I am a conservative due to my preferences and an anti-socialist since the mid-1960s, due to unionism and the ALP party actions during the Vietnam War.
My political conservative development strength in the past half of a century when splintered political parties and independent politics gained strength and the Liberals across Australia self-destructed because of internal factionalism and in 2015 Turnbull and the Liberal National Parliamentarians assassinated Abbott, I do not the Liberal Party but still a conservative and staunch anti-socialist.
So, how has socialism changed during my life?
I searched Google for answers because I believe that Christian Western Democracies globally are under threat of destruction because socialism in the English democracies is gaining greater power from alliances of extreme socialist political parties in Canada/USA the UK and Australia and this seems to be reinforced as explained in this link – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism –
For me, nationalism has been weakened in English democracies and with increased displacement and migration to the EU, the UK and Australia will divide us even more over the next few decades.
Do you have the same feelings?
Bob Buick
Mountain Creek Qld 4557
0428228425
Today we are packing our caravan and very early tomorrow morning we are heading north. We will be away until the 7th November. I will continue to post daily if I have a good single. Please continue to send any stories or items of interest tome at hq@frontline.asn.au your info could save me research time.
Cheers
Ray