Why the Coalition backs nuclear
“Our sense of this is that nuclear is a debating issue that gives the Coalition cover for its quite diverse and often quite split positions … It enables them to not have to announce what their actual policy position is.” (Dave Sweeney of Australian Conservation Foundation)
The Saturday Paper, By Mike Seccombe, AUGUST 19 – 25, 2023 | No. 463
Previously staunch opponents of nuclear energy in the Coalition are now backing it as an alternative to renewables, despite largely unproven technology, long delays for approvals and the unsolved problem of waste. .
In his younger days, Ted O’Brien, the federal shadow minister for climate change and energy, was strongly anti-nuclear. But these days, he marches with a different crowd. Indeed, he leads it.
Tony Abbott is among them. As is Gina Rinehart, the richest person in the country. And Warren Mundine, a leader of the campaign against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. And Andrew Liveris, an architect of former energy minister Angus Taylor’s abortive “gas-fired recovery” plan. And the climate change sceptics at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). And a raft of right-wing commentators, particularly in the Murdoch media, which also dutifully records each new salvo fired by Rinehart, Mundine, Liveris and others on the latest front in the climate wars.
The front is the battle for acceptance of nuclear power as an alternative energy source to renewables.
It is perhaps unsurprising things have come to this. Despite the efforts of the last federal government to slow-walk the shift to renewables and to extend the life of fossil fuels – particularly the dirtiest of them, coal – it has long been increasingly obvious they are on the way out. There will never be another coal-fired power station built in this country. Gas is an expensive alternative of very limited and declining utility.
Having spent years fomenting resistance to wind and solar, battery storage and new transmission infrastructure, the political right could hardly be expected to reverse course. Nuclear, though, presented an opportunity for differentiation. And so, last month, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton grasped it firmly. In a speech to the IPA, he accused the Albanese government of “renewable zealotry … putting our nation at risk”.
“The Albanese government is recklessly rushing to renewables and switching off the old system before the new one is ready,” he said.
………… Dutton offered a new variation on an old, radioactive theme.
………………… [Dutton advocated] “next-generation nuclear technologies which are safe and emit zero emissions. Namely, small modular reactors, or SMRs. And microreactors or micro modular reactors – MMRs – which are also known as nuclear batteries.”
A single SMR, Dutton said, could power 300,000 homes. An MMR could power a hospital, a factory, a mining site or a military base…………………………………. Dutton was singing from the songsheet Ted O’Brien has been assiduously composing for years.
………………. In 2019, the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, chaired by O’Brien, conducted an inquiry into nuclear power.
Interestingly, it did not give a blanket endorsement. It found Australia should definitely reject old nuclear technology, but conditionally approve new and emerging technologies of the sort Dutton spoke about. There were dissenting reports from Labor members on the committee and the independent Zali Steggall.
The report’s title was “Not without your approval”, a recognition that nukes faced a big problem in gaining social licence.
It stressed that nuclear plants and waste facilities should not be imposed on local communities.
The response – or rather lack of response – from O’Brien’s superiors suggest they also worried about its public acceptability. The government made no move towards addressing the threshold problem with having nuclear power in Australia: that it is illegal under two separate pieces of legislation, passed under the Howard government.
…………. The most optimistic forecasts, including by O’Brien himself, suggest that even if new legislation were passed to remove the existing bans, it would take at least five years to get a reactor approved, up and running. A significant weight of expert opinion suggests far longer – probably 10 to 15 years.
Way back in 2006, the Howard government appointed the nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski from the board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to conduct a review of Australia’s possible nuclear future.
The review concluded nuclear power would likely be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than power from a new coal-fired plant. It would take 10 to 15 years, and government subsidies, to get any nukes into the grid. Switkowski also foresaw cost reductions in renewable generation that would make them even more competitive.
That was before SMRs were contemplated, of course, but in the years since, the calculus hasn’t changed much, except that renewables and storage have become cheaper and faster.
Big questions remain about the cost of power from SMRs and the timeframes for deploying them.
Even Dutton’s assertion that modular reactors are a “feasible and proven technology” is questionable. They certainly look feasible, but they are hardly proven.
Mark Ho, newly elected president of the Australian Nuclear Association, an independent professional body of nuclear advocates, says there are currently just two operational SMRs in the world – one in Russia and one in China. Many more are in prospect. According to Dutton – and there is no reason to doubt him – 50 or more countries “are exploring or investing in new SMRs and nuclear batteries”.
But they are a way off being operational, Ho says. “In the US, there’s two leading designs, the NuScale reactor and BWRX, slated for completion by 2029.” In the UK, Rolls-Royce plans to have a first SMR up and running by 2029. Others are under development in Canada and elsewhere, Ho says, all looking to be operational around the end of the decade.
These timeframes mean SMRs would do nothing to help Australia meet its 2030 emissions reduction target…………………
It’s noteworthy that none of the talk reflects an actual policy commitment, says Dave Sweeney, nuclear-free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation. “Our sense of this is that nuclear is a debating issue that gives the Coalition cover for its quite diverse and often quite split positions,” he says.
The debate gives the impression that the conservative parties are sincere about finding the best way forward, he suggests, when in reality a significant portion of its ranks “just don’t want renewables” and remain committed to fossil fuels.
“It enables them to not have to announce what their actual policy position is. When asked what is their response to energy and climate issues, what they say is ‘we need to consider everything’,” says Sweeney.
“They talk about the need for discussion, conversation, all that sort of stuff – as if we haven’t talked about it and had royal commissions about it and federal/state inquiries about it ad nauseam.”
Which is essentially what O’Brien tells The Saturday Paper when asked what the opposition’s actual policy is………………………..
The opposition is constrained, too, by its internal divisions. Sweeney cites a recent example, from last month’s Liberal National Party Queensland convention, “where there was a motion to support nuclear and [state party leader David] Crisafulli just slapped it down”.
……………………………………………………….. The same pro nuclear argument was made by Coalition senators in a report from yet another parliamentary inquiry, which came down last week.
The impetus for this one was a private member’s bill introduced last year by a Nationals senator and implacable foe of renewable energy, Matt Canavan, and co-sponsored by eight other conservatives. Its purpose, Canavan told the Senate, was to remove the bans on nuclear power “because that would be the best way to take advantage of future technological developments that could see nuclear energy as the most competitive carbon free option to produce electricity”.
Two pieces of Commonwealth legislation prohibit nuclear power in Australia. They are the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, and they prevent the construction or operation of nuclear facilities for power generation, as well as facilities for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste.
A further complication is that the three large east coast states, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, also have legislation prohibiting the construction of nuclear plants, while Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory have legislation that prohibits the transport or disposal of nuclear waste.
Canavan’s bill was duly shunted to a committee, and when it reported back, it was, to no one’s surprise, split.
The majority recommended the bans remain, citing eight reasons: that “next generation” nuclear technology was unproven; that expert evidence held it would take 10 or 15 years to come online, by which time it would be unnecessary because Australia would have hit its 83 per cent emissions reduction target; that it was inflexible in its output; that it posed risks to human health and the environment; that it required vast quantities of water for cooling; that it created national security risks because neighbouring nations might suspect we would make nuclear weapons, and might in response target us; that it lacked a social licence and that renewables were cheaper.
Coalition members produced a dissenting report…………………………..
Regardless of the relative merits of the competing arguments, what mattered was what always matters in politics: the numbers. And the government had the numbers on the committee, just as it has the numbers in the parliament. So the ban on nukes stays, so long as Labor and the anti-nukes who dominate the cross benches hold power.
And they hold power so long as public opinion is with them.
On that front, much has been made in conservative media of an opinion poll taken in May, which found 45 per cent of voters either strongly or somewhat supported nuclear power as a domestic energy source, with 23 per cent opposed and the rest undecided. It also found 51 per cent support for removing the bans on nuclear energy.
The poll was commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, a body that has long supported the nuclear industry, but the questions asked were pretty straightforward.
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll that asked voters if they would like to see a nuclear plant or waste facility in their electorate. Because you can bet that’s the scare campaign nuclear opponents would mount if the opposition formally adopted the position Dutton, O’Brien, and the conservative members of that committee have intimated.
And in that case, you really have to wonder whether the endorsement of such prominent supporters as Gina Rinehart, Tony Abbott, Warren Mundine and Andrew Liveris and the power of the IPA or even the Murdoch media would sway many votes. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2023/08/19/why-the-coalition-backs-nuclear
Risk of cancer death after exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation underestimated, suggests nuclear industry study
by British Medical Journal, 16 Aug 23, https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-08-cancer-death-exposure-low-dose-ionizing.html
Prolonged exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation is associated with a higher risk of death from cancer than previously thought, suggests research tracking the deaths of workers in the nuclear industry, published in The BMJ.
The findings should inform current rules on workplace protection from low-dose radiation, say the researchers.
To date, estimates of the effects of radiation on the risk of dying from cancer have been based primarily on studies of survivors of atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War.
These estimates are used to set the level of protection required for workers regularly exposed to much lower doses of radiation in the nuclear industry and other sectors such as health care.
But the latest data from the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) suggest that risk estimates, based on the acute exposures among atomic bomb survivors to an extremely high dose of radiation, may underestimate the cancer risks from exposure to much lower doses of ionizing radiation delivered over a prolonged period in the workplace.
The researchers therefore tracked and analyzed deaths among 309,932 workers in the nuclear industry in the UK, France, and the US (INWORKS) for whom individual monitoring data for external exposure to ionizing radiation were available.
During a monitoring period spanning 1944 to 2016, 103,553 workers died: 28,089 of these deaths were due to solid cancers, which include most cancers other than leukemia.
The researchers then used this information to estimate the risk of death from solid cancers based on workers’ exposure to radiation 10 years previously.
They estimated that this risk increased by 52% for every unit of radiation (Gray; Gy) workers had absorbed. A dose of one Gray is equivalent to a unit of one Joule of energy deposited in a kilogram of a substance.
But when the analysis was restricted to workers who had been exposed to the lowest cumulative doses of radiation (0-100 mGy), this approximately doubled the risk of death from solid cancers per unit Gy absorbed.
Similarly, restricting the analysis only to workers hired in more recent years when estimates of occupational external penetrating radiation dose were more accurate also increased the risk of death from solid cancer per unit Gy absorbed.
Excluding deaths from cancers of the lung and lung cavity, which might be linked to smoking or occupational exposure to asbestos, had little effect on the strength of the association.
The researchers acknowledge some limitations to their findings, including that exposures for workers employed in the early years of the nuclear industry may have been poorly estimated, despite their efforts to account for subsequent improvements in dosimeter technology—a device for measuring exposure to radiation.
They also point out that the separate analysis of deaths restricted to workers hired in more recent years found an even higher risk of death from solid cancer per unit Gy absorbed, meaning that the increased risk observed in the full cohort wasn’t driven by workers employed in the earliest years of the industry. There were also no individual level data on several potentially influential factors, including smoking.
“People often assume that low dose rate exposures pose less carcinogenic hazard than the high dose rate exposures experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors,” write the researchers. “Our study does not find evidence of reduced risk per unit dose for solid cancer among workers typically exposed to radiation at low dose rates.”
They hope that organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection will use their results to inform their assessment of the risks of low dose, and low dose rate, radiation and ultimately in an update of the system of radiological protection.
More information: Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study, The BMJ (2023). DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-074520
Journal information: British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Japan’s nuclear plants are short of storage for spent fuel. A remote town could have the solution.
Chugoku Electric’s plan to build a nuclear power plant in Kaminoseki has been stalled for more than a decade since the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, delaying subsidies for the remote town, whose population is aging and shrinking.
“The town will only get poorer if we just keep waiting,” Kaminoseki Mayor Tetsuo Nishi – “We should do whatever is available now.”
ByMARI YAMAGUCHI Associated Press, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/japans-nuclear-plants-short-storage-spent-fuel-remote-102373016 August 19, 2023
TOKYO — A Japanese town said Friday it has agreed to a geological study to determine its suitability as an interim storage site for spent nuclear fuel.
Kaminoseki, a small town in the southwestern prefecture of Yamaguchi, said it would accept the offer of a survey by Chugoku Electric Power Co., one of two major utility operators, along with Kansai Electric Power Co., whose spent fuel storage pools are almost full.
The Japanese government is promoting the greater use of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source, but the country’s nuclear plants are running out of storage capacity.
The problem stems from Japan’s stalled nuclear fuel recycling program to reprocess plutonium from spent fuel for reuse. The government has continued to pursue the program, despite serious technical setbacks. A plutonium-burning Monju reactor failed and is being decommissioned, while the launch of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in northern Japan has been delayed for almost 30 years.
After the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011, many reactors were temporarily taken offline and their restarts delayed, helping to reduce the spent fuel stockpile.
However, when Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government decided to reverse a phaseout and maximize nuclear power as clean energy, concerns over the lack of storage space were rekindled.
Earlier this month, Chugoku put forward a proposal to build a storage facility jointly with Kansai Electric, but the plan was met by angry protests from residents, who surrounded the mayor and yelled at him.
Chugoku Electric’s plan to build a nuclear power plant in Kaminoseki has been stalled for more than a decade since the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, delaying subsidies for the remote town, whose population is aging and shrinking.
“The town will only get poorer if we just keep waiting,” Kaminoseki Mayor Tetsuo Nishi told a televised news conference Friday. “We should do whatever is available now.”
Kansai Electric, Japan’s largest nuclear plant operator, is urgently seeking additional storage for spent fuel: the cooling pools at its plants are more than 80% full. The company pledged to find a potential interim storage site by the end of this year.
About 19,000 tons of spent fuel, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, is stored at power plants across Japan, taking up about 80% of their storage capacity, according to the economy and industry ministry.
The continuation of spent fuel reprocessing program and the delay have only added to Japan’s already large plutonium stockpile, raising international concern. Japan also lacks a final repository for high-level nuclear waste.
An intermediate facility is designed to keep nuclear spent fuel in dry casks for decades until it is moved to a reprocessing or to a final repository. Experts say it is a much safer option than keeping it in uncovered cooling pools at their plants.
If the storage is actually built, it will be the second such facility in Japan. The only other one is in Mutsu, near Rokkasho, which is reserved for Tokyo Electric Power Co. and a smaller utility.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 