TOO SLOW: Despite the Coalition’s extremely optimistic hopes to the contrary, as well as AGL, the CSIRO and others say a nuclear power plant of any size would not be operational in Australia until well after 2040. Too Late! for our Pacific neighbours (and indeed our own Torres Strait Islanders). To quote the Hindustan Times 30/8, ‘the future is now lapping at their shores.’ For the rest of Australia, with August 31, 2024 the hottest winter day on record, waiting another 16 years is certain invitation for increasingly more fires, floods, droughts and general catastrophic disasters – of the first week of spring 2024.

UNNECESSARY: Continuous electricity generation is also known as baseload power.

The oft repeated mantra “When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow…” pointing to renewables’ perceived lack of baseload power was used by previous Australian governments and other proponents to cite the perceived unreliability of renewables and hence the absolute necessity of maintaining the coal industry here – at least to fill in the gap. Seemingly (and perhaps only seemingly) under the present Opposition its allegiance has shifted to nuclear. As well, the Minerals Council is a keen promotor of gas.

However, here are the facts: already renewables currently supply about 40 per cent of the grid’s electricity, and the Albanese government is aiming to have renewables supply 82 per cent of the grid by 2030. My own state of SA is already a world leader in renewable energy achieved with solar and wind, with Renew Economy’s Giles Parkinson (July 10th article) wondering why not more credit is given to this standout achievement. Parkinson quotes SA Energy Minister Koutsantonis’ jubilant announcement that with recently secured federal funding, South Australia would achieve 100 per cent renewable electricity as early as 2027.

At present in SA alone there are four additional batteries sites being constructed.

Unsurprisingly, the transmission lines in Port Augusta that the Opposition project expects to use for their nuclear project are already nearly full from new renewables. And in contrast with the flexibility of renewables, nuclear plants cannot be turned off at short notice.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) manages the day-to-day operations of the energy grid. The Albanese government cites AEMO’s statement that the grid does not need a new source of baseload power as wind and solar, paired with batteries and pumped hydro dams, will be able to supply up to 90 per cent of our power needs in the future, while rapid-response gas or hydrogen-fired generation plants could be used in short bursts when needed. AMEO’s integrated system plan, a roadmap for the optimal future grid, backs an accelerated build of available technology to reach 83% of renewable generation by 2030, 96% by 2040 and 98% by 2050 as the best, most likely option.

TOO EXPENSIVE: Nuclear power is far more expensive than other energy sources. As well, since 2010, the cost of wind and solar PV has decreased by 70‒90 per cent while nuclear costs have increased 33 per cent. The astronomical startup costs to build just one nuclear reactor, even in countries possessing the necessary expertise, are borne out by the following latest estimates for all reactors under construction in western Europe and the U.S. These range from A$25.7 billion to A$43.5 billion per reactor. And note as well: all projects have been subject to spectacular cost overruns.

The obvious question: where is the money to build seven nuclear reactors coming from?

Overseas experience makes clear that if there are any expectations that private companies will take on the project, these are unfounded by present-day reality. Thus the huge costs will need to be funded by the Australian taxpayer. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) notes moreover that many of Australia’s leading insurance companies will not cover damage from a nuclear disaster. Reputable Australian science bodies calculate that at this stage devolving into nuclear will add $1000 to each Australian household power bills.

In summary, Australia’s leading scientific organisation CSIRO says that nuclear power “does not provide an economically competitive solution in Australia.”

TOO IMPOSSIBLE: Just taking SMRs as one example: It seems to be of absolutely no consequence to federal Opposition members – in fact do they even know – that the Small Nuclear Reactors which they are proposing for Port Augusta SA and Muja WA do not actually yet exist? Certainly not in any OECD country.

TOO DANGEROUS: To quote the Friends of the Earth website, there have been over 200 nuclear accidents world wide. Post Fukushima (2011), the disaster to which members of our 2018 Peace Boat visit gave witness, the price of uranium dropped considerably. With the passage of time and the ever optimistic promotion by the nuclear industry, the price is again rising. Obviously, the very real dangers still remain. As ACF’s Dave Sweeney noted after the August Newcastle quakes:

“A magnitude 4.8 earthquake not far from one of Peter Dutton’s proposed nuclear reactor sites is further evidence of the risky nature of the Coalition’s radioactive plan. The Coalition failed to do any detailed site analysis or community consultation and has instead based its plan on politics rather than evidence.”

What of the impact on our driest continent? A significant fact is surely that a single nuclear power reactor operating for a single day typically consumes 36‒65 million litres of water.

Federal Environment Minister Bowen recently released work done by the ALP re impacts of nuclear power on agriculture (water consumption, accidents risks): Joint Ministerial Statement on Nuclear Reactors on Agricultural Land. An estimated 11,955 farms are situated within 80km of the seven nuclear reactors that the Federal Opposition has proposed for construction across regional Australia.

Included in the dangerous category must be the absolutely intransigent situation of what to do with the high-level radioactive waste from nuclear reactors which remains highly toxic for an impossible to comprehend 100,000 years. The reality is that no country in the world has a permanent solution to the permanent deposition of radioactive waste. Even Finland’s deep underground depository is not yet operational. In our own country after four separate attempts ranging from 1998 to 2023, various federal governments have failed to secure long-term security for just the nation’s present low and intermediate waste.

So WHY? One would think that with all the negatives listed above this would be the end of the story. Why would Peter Dutton reverse the previous Opposition policy to ban nuclear power?

Friends of the Earth expert Dr Jim Green and other environmentalists reveal a key reason:

“In fact, nuclear power would slow the shift away from fossil fuels, which is why fossil-fuel funded political parties and politicians support nuclear power (e.g. the Liberal / Nationals Coalition) and why organisations such as the Minerals Council of Australia support nuclear power. As Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin notes, support for nuclear power in Australia is, in practice, support for coal.”

Finally: a frightening thing for our democracy including the power of the States is the reality that the Coalition, if it were to gain federal power, plans to set up their own Nuclear Authority. This would simply ride over any Traditional Owner concern, any community concern and perhaps most frightening of all, could simply overturn any State jurisdiction. It would seem that the only way to ensure the Opposition’s nuclear plans are given no chance to come to fruition is to ensure they do remain just that: the Opposition’s nuclear plans.

Certainly the Opposition has made it increasingly clear that it has no ambition to respect Australian’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. As Mrs Crombie, a key leader of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta’s 1998-2004 successful national no nuclear dump campaign used to wonder, “Haven’t white people got grandchildren?” In 2024, Wendy Farmer, co-ordinator of the seven proposed nuclear power sites opposition communities has the same question: “Why would we do it and why would we waste the future generations?”