From 25th June – the most recent Australian nuclear news.
(See last week’s at https://antinuclear.net/2024/06/24/keep-up-to-date-on-australias-media-quagmire-on-nuclear-power/)
Climate. Nuclear more costly and could ‘sound the death knell’ for Australia’s decarbonisation efforts, report says. Incoming climate change tsar Matt Kean pours cold water on nuclear push.
Economics. Coalition’s taxpayer-funded nuclear con a road to ruin
Politics. Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plans are an ironic backflip to nationalisation for the Liberal Party. ‘Long held denialism’: Paul Keating launches stinging attack on Coalition’s nuclear power push. “Jam tomorrow:” Dutton’s confused nuclear plan won’t keep the lights o ACT ‘vulnerable’ to being forced into nuclear under Coalition: Barr. The cloud of coal has long hung over the Latrobe Valley. Now nuclear power is dividing it.
Public Opinion. Resolve Political Monitor: New poll reveals what Aussie voters think of Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plans.
Renewable. Nuclear option ‘not enough’ to avoid rush for more wind and solar.
Secrets and lies. The Coalition says the rest of the G20 is powering ahead with nuclear – it’s just not true
Spinbuster. Dutton Nuclear is just a scam | Scam of the Week https://www.youtube.com/embed/vVwkt9gX2DM?si=kv39UZ4-WYmyur9P Peter Dutton says nuclear power plants “burn energy.” No they don’t.
Technology. The Coalition says its nuclear plants will run for 100 years. What does the international experience tell us?
Wastes. What happens to nuclear waste under Peter Dutton’s Coalition plan to build seven nuclear power reactors? Nuclear energy creates the most dangerous form of radioactive waste. Where does Peter Dutton plan to put it?.
Nuclear lobby concedes rooftop solar will have to make way for reactors
Giles Parkinson, Jun 24, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-lobby-concedes-rooftop-solar-will-have-to-make-way-for-reactors/
The nuclear lobby in Australia has conceded one aspect of the nuclear power plan that the federal Coalition does not like talking about – that the rooftop solar embraced by households and businesses will have to make way for the Opposition’s planned reactors.
This is not actually a surprise to anyone associated with the energy industry, because it is quite clear that there is no room for an “always on” generator of any type – be it coal, gas or nuclear – in a grid dominated by variable wind and solar.
In Australia, this is particularly the case because of the continent’s magnificent solar resources, and the huge uptake of rooftop PV by consumers, which already stands at more than 20 gigawatts (GW) and is forecast to quadruple to more than 80 GW in coming decades.
In South Australia, rooftop solar has already met all local demand on occasions. The market operator predicts that this will occur in Western Australia within a few years, and in other bigger states on the eastern seaboard within a decade.
How do you jam nuclear reactors into this energy mix? Renew Economy has asked this question on several occasions – here and here in particular – and it now seems the nuclear lobby has finally fessed up to the solution: Switch off rooftop solar.
“I think what will happen is that nuclear will just tend to push out solar,” Robert Barr, a member of the lobby group Nuclear for Climate told the ABC in a story that addresses the issue.
Barr admitted that nuclear power plants have some flexibility, but not a lot. They could ramp down to around 60 per cent of their capacity, he says. But the reality is that the their economics – already hugely expensive – blow out even further if not running all the time. Solar panels would have to make way, he said.
“There’ll be an incentive for customers to back off,” he said. “And I think it wouldn’t be that difficult to build control systems to stop export of power at the domestic level. It’d be difficult for all the existing ones but for new ones, it just might require a little bit of smarts in them to achieve that particular end — it can be managed.”
Almost everyone involved in the Australian grid – be they developers, generators, network operators, investors, advisors or regulators – recognises that the system design is moving on from “base-load” and always on power to variable renewables and dispatchable power (mostly storage).
But this new reality this does not support the fossil fuel industry’s view of the world, not their economic and business models, and while the Coalition has made its position against large scale wind and solar clear, it hasn’t talked about the impact on rooftop solar, apart from saying it supports it in principle.
But how?
Some insight into what is shaping the Coalition’s thinking comes from testimony to parliamentary committee in 2021 by James Fleay, a former oil and gas executive and founder of the advocacy group Down Under Nuclear Energy (Dune), who serves as an advisor to Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien.
Fleay told the parliamentary committee looking into future energy choices that “baseload” architecture had served Australia well for a century and should not be changed. “We have to make a decision about grid architecture,” he said.
“We cannot adapt our energy usage to accommodate the rising and setting of the sun or seasonal weather uncertainties without enormous human and economic costs,” Fleay said, before adding later: “I think that is possible and true only at the margins, but not in bulk.”
Basically Fleay admitted that it is a choice between models – baseload or renewable, and in various interviews has said Australia’s isolated grid as a reason not to go the wind and solar route because of the inability to export.
But that same isolation has an equal, or arguably greater impact on nuclear because of its dependence on high production rates, known as capacity factors. The French nuclear generators wouldn’t survive without the connection to other European grids and the ability to export to other countries.
To be sure, the Australian market operator is pushing hard to be able to “orchestrate” rooftop solar and other consumer energy resources as a way of managing the grid. But the extent it would need to do so with multiple gigawatts of “always on” nuclear would dramatically increase.
The energy industry knows this. The two – nuclear and rooftop solar – simply can’t go out on the same date. The Coalition, or at least its advisors, also appear to know this. But when will it be honest about this situation with the general public and the households and businesses with solar on their rooftops?
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
The insane amount it could cost to turn Australia nuclear – as new detail in Peter Dutton’s bold plan is revealed
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
- Peter Dutton nuclear plan slammed
- Proposal could cost $600billion
By JACK QUAIL FOR NCA NEWSWIRE and AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS 23 June 2024, more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13559019/The-insane-cost-turn-Australia-nuclear-Peter-Dutton-slammed-completely-irrational-plan.html
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek has added her voice to the tirade of criticism against the Opposition’s nuclear energy push, labelling the proposal as ‘completely irrational’ and ‘designed to be a distraction’.
Speaking on Sunday, the environment and water minister criticised the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.
‘He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,’ Ms Plibersek told Sky News.
According to analysis released by the Smart Energy Council using data from the latest GenCost report, Labor’s non-nuclear energy plan is estimated to cost $117bn through to 2050, while the Coalition’s pledge would cost upwards of $600bn.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has flagged an evolution in the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, revealing that each of the seven sites could host multiple reactors.
But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.
‘One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,’ Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.
‘Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.
‘You’re talking about multi-unit plants.’
An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.
‘The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,’ he said.
‘From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.
‘Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts’.
Last week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia on the sites of former coal fired power stations, adding no more than 10GW to the power grid, meaning renewables will remain the vast majority of the energy mix.
Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver ‘at best’ 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.
‘In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,’ he said.
Nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage, Mr Grimes said.
‘The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,’ he said.
The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites.
‘They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,’ Mr Grimes said.
‘It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.’
Separate analysis released by CSIRO put the cost of building a large-scale nuclear reactor at $8.6bn, bringing the total cost to approximately $60bn, however nuclear projects are often subject to hefty delays and soaring cost overruns.
Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.
‘We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,’ Ms Plibersek said.
‘We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.
‘He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.’
Coalition won’t say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election
By political reporter Tom Crowley, 2024, ABC
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-23/coalition-wont-reveal-nuclear-power-generation-before-election/104012212
- In short: The Coalition is unable to provide details about the amount of power to be generated by its proposed nuclear reactors.
- Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders that would be determined after the election, despite industry groups calling for more information to inform investments.
- What’s next? The Coalition says it will release information about the cost of its plans in future.
The Coalition is unable to say how much nuclear energy it plans to generate, its energy spokesperson says.
The amount of power is one of many details the opposition did not provide on Wednesday when it said it wanted to build seven nuclear plants across five states between 2035 and 2050. Other details include cost and precise timing.
But business and experts say the power generation figure is essential for energy investors to understand what balance of nuclear, renewables and gas the Coalition proposes for Australia, and plan their investments accordingly.
Energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC’s Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies.
“We would be leaving that to the nuclear energy co-ordinating authority,” he said.
“That independent body is to work out at each site what is the feasibility of certain technologies and only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts.”
That is unlikely to satisfy the concerns of industry groups who point to Labor’s annually updated Integrated System Plan, which lays out its proposed energy mix in gigawatts.
Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said this was important for “certainty” and investor confidence.
But Mr O’Brien said gigawatts were “very specific” and the Coalition would instead offer its “assumptions” and provide a broad figure for “how much we believe there will be come 2050”.
“I’m a Liberal and I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money, but to be really clear our focus is on the Australian people that want to save money,” he said.
Mr O’Brien also revealed the Coalition planned to have multiple reactors on some sites, which would increase the amount of energy produced.
Estimates from experts have put the amount of power able to be generated by seven nuclear sites at about 10 gigawatts, or less than 4 per cent of Australia’s energy needs.
Mixed signals on renewables
The proposed energy contribution of nuclear is also relevant to the status of the renewables rollout and the extent to which the Coalition would seek to continue it in government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has consistently framed the nuclear policy as an alternative to renewables and even suggested there would be a renewables “cap”.
But Mr O’Brien said on Sunday that was not the Coalition’s policy and the Coalition was “united around the idea by 2050 of a net zero power grid”.
Mr O’Brien added he did not believe renewable energy could be used as Australia’s “baseload” power source, labelling the government’s 85 per cent renewables target as unrealistic.
Asked what the Coalition would do about the looming short-term energy shortfall, given 90 per cent of coal power is set to exit the National Electricity Market within the next decade and before the first proposed nuclear plant would be built, Mr O’Brien said the answer was to “pour more gas into the market” but also said he would “welcome all renewables”.
“The government believes the aim of the game is to maximise the amount of renewables. We want the optimum amount.”
The government supports renewables through its Capacity Investment Scheme, which underwrites approved renewables projects to give investors a “revenue safety net”. The Coalition’s plans for that scheme in government are not clear, but Mr O’Brien promised renewable and gas projects would be forthcoming.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the Coalition’s plan threatened the progress of renewables in the short-term.
“You’re not going to see [a nuclear plant] for a decade at least. Australians want relief from their energy bills now,” she told Sky News on Sunday.
“We’re seeing renewables entering our energy market, bringing down the cost of energy. It’s already happening, and instead Peter Dutton’s got some plan he won’t tell you the cost of that might help in a decade’s time.
“We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the breaks on, instead of us leading the world with renewable energy he wants to put us on the slow lane. It’s just mad.”
John Grimes, chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said the Coalition policy was “a spoke in the wheel of progress” and was actively undermining renewables.
Mr Littleproud again on Sunday morning said the explicit intention of the nuclear policy was less renewables.
“That’s just math,” he told Sky News, saying there would be fewer transmission lines and less “tearing up [of] prime agricultural ground” under the Coalition.
While the Coalition has not yet revealed the cost, Mr Littleproud said the construction costs were “in the ballpark” of $8 billion per unit.
Asked about the higher cost of nuclear in most expert analysis, he said the government would “control” the plants and could run them in a way that would “drive down the cost”.
Mr O’Brien also flagged a plan for “market reform” to reduce prices, but did not elaborate.
Two years of community consultation to ‘make sure they understand’
Mr Littleproud and Mr O’Brien both flagged two and a half years of local community consultation would be needed before site details could be finalised, but that communities would not be given the opportunity to veto.
“That is not international best practice,” Mr O’Brien said.
“We are taking this to the Australian people, we are seeking a mandate.”
He added he did not expect that communities were likely to oppose the plants.
Mr Littleproud said he planned to “take the Australian people on a journey … [we would] start the two and a half year consultation process with those communities to make sure they understood”.
Dutton’s nuclear plan can only exist in a broken democratic system
By Klaas Woldring | 24 June 2024
Dutton’s nonsensical foray into nuclear energy reminds Australian voters again of the issues prevalent within this country’s Constitution and democratic institutions, Dr Klaas Woldring writes.
WE HAVE RECENTLY experienced the nonsense of the “No” vote by the official Opposition against the highly sensible proposal by the Albanese Government to introduce an Indigenous Voice in the archaic Australian Constitution.
The Dutton Opposition then made use of the staggering ignorance of the voters about the white Australian Constitution. Now it is preparing to drag Australia into the creation of unnecessary nuclear energy plants which would be developed in seven safe conservative electoral seats.
The use of the single-member electoral system is now planned for an energy system that is not supported by the majority and is indeed widely rejected for several important reasons. It should be noted now that the planned use of single-member districts for this purpose is, in fact, a further negative of that system.
The role of the Opposition Leader to develop opposing policies – the Westminster function of an Opposition leader – has now resulted in quite unnecessary threats to endanger society.
David Crowe in the Sydney Morning Herald has already pointed out ‘two black holes before getting to countless questions about secondary details’ — the cost to build them and to run them for decades, as well as design.
Above all, Australians surely can generate plenty of solar and wind energy. The need for nuclear power simply does not exist in Australia at all.
To try to use safe conservative seats for that negative purpose is to further abuse that electoral system. That two-party system is altogether no longer providing an effective democracy.
We have had a gut full of pork barrelling, of neglected safe seats and of the fact that only a handful of seats are decided on the first count, the rest on compulsory preferences. Let’s stop pretending that this is a fair system, nothing could be further from the truth.
Australian voters have already turned their back on the Liberal Party, voted strongly for Independent women and the Greens in 2022 and, by doing so, essentially said goodbye to the two-party system.
However, further reflection is needed as to what that means and what will replace it.
The major parties may be reluctant to replace the single-member electoral district system with a much more democratic system.
Although it had a marginally positive election outcome for the ALP in 2022, as it still delivered its majority government despite a very low primary vote of 32.6%, it is further proof that major electoral system change is in fact long overdue.
The single-member district system with compulsory preferencing has strongly, but quite unfairly, favoured the major parties. The outcome also still resulted in severe under-representation of the Greens in the House of Representatives even though they ended up with four seats.
Proportionally, they should have gained around 18 seats. A Proportional system naturally is based on multi-member seats. Still, the somewhat unusual 2022 Election outcome does not mean that the electoral system has changed at all.
The Oppositionist culture will continue — clearly a potential threat to unity and progress in Australia. However, this may not be the preferred way of Prime Minister Albanese either.
His stated preference is for cooperation — also for fairness and democratic representation. Really, here is his opportunity. The Westminster legacy of Australia’s inherited parliamentary and electoral systems is no longer really fit for the purpose intended.
Even in the UK and U.S., this is widely recognised. Certainly, the Greens and most – perhaps all of the Independents as well – will now reflect on campaigning for a more democratic electoral system.
For nearly half the voters – culturally diverse – the system is altogether of questionable value. Therefore, it is high time to move away from the two-party system and the single-member district electoral system that produces it.
Governance and political education have to be a much more prominent part of the longer-term reforms, but the electoral system can be changed straight away. A new electoral law can be developed right now. The Parliament has the constitutional power to make electoral reforms. That is stated in several clauses.
Multi-member electoral systems (MMP) could be 15 of, say, 10 MPs for the Federal House of Representatives. This would yield a national multi-party system and more Independents.
The nonsensical need for Opposition leaders to dream up unhelpful alternatives against the government party would disappear forever. The emphasis would be on cooperation rather than Opposition, a major step forward in the nation.
The recent political history in Australia demonstrates that the need for system change is urgent. The new electoral system should be national, not based on based on federal-state boundaries.
Of course, similar system changes should follow in the federal states as well.
This week’s countering the nuclear spin
Some bits of good news. Solar Power’s Giants Are Providing More Energy Than Big Oil. Clean-Energy Investment This Year To Be Twice That of Fossil Fuels, IEA Says. A River’s Rights: Indigenous Kukama Women Lead the Way with Landmark Legal Victory.
TOP STORIES. Blinken made secret weapons promise to Israel – Netanyahu. The US, Russia, and Ukraine: 75 Years of Hate Propaganda. Nuclear-armed countries spent $2,898 per second last year on nuclear weapons. We’ve barely scratched the surface of how energy efficiency can help the energy transition.
Climate. Extreme heat and flash floods: Scientists warn of hazardous summer weather in Europe. Climate Emergency strikes Islam’s Holy Ritual, with nearly 600 dead of Heat stroke at 124.24° F. in Mecca. Saudi Arabia shuts pilgrims out of air-conditioned areas as more than 1,000 die in extreme heat.
Nuclear. Overwhelmed with Australian stuff this week!
Noel’s notes. Nuclear culture wars – especially in Australia. What a disaster, if the anti-war movement brings Donald Trump back to the White House!
*****************************************************************
AUSTRALIA Keep up to date at this site:
Australia’s media quagmire on nuclear power.
Lockheed Martin, Australian Government: joined at the hip. Australian Futures:
Bringing AUKUS Out of Stealth Mode, and the true financial costs.
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR ISSUES
ECONOMICS. Big Tech Wants Nuclear Power But
Doesn’t See Role as Investor. Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say. Nuclear power’s financial problems exposed in new report. Very late and over budget: Why newest large nuclear plant in US is likely to be the last. UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated.
| ENERGY. Why we are heading for a globally connected electricity system based on renewable energy. | EVENTS. Veterans for Peace Golden Rule Project 2024: the Pacific Northwest. | ETHICS and RELIGION. Ten Holocaust survivors condemn Israel’s Gaza genocide. |
| HEALTH. Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks. | LEGAL. Sellafield operators plead guilty to criminal charges over security breaches. Veterans for Peace Golden Rule Project 2024: the Pacific Northwest. | MEDIA. Comments to The Times: Nuclear won’t fix our energy crisis |
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR .
Kenya’s first nuclear plant: why plans face fierce opposition in country’s coastal paradise.
POLITICS.
- Senate Nuclear Fetishists Take Lid Off of Pandora’s Box.
- No more ‘endless’ payments to Zelensky – Trump.
- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinforced his party’s commitment to nuclear energy UK nuclear power plants rollout may be hit by planning hurdles. ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/06/22/1-b1-uk-nuclear-power-plants-rollout-may-be-hit-by-planning-hurdles/ Nuclear black hole could deal a knock-out blow to UK Labour’s renewable targets.
- Over budget and plagued with delays: UK nuclear lessons for Australia.
- Scotland’s First Minister Swinney hits back at ‘hopelessly ideological’ attack from nuclear industry.
- U.S. Congress passes bill to jumpstart new nuclear power tech, but it may be too little, too late.
- Gavin Newsom’s $12 Billion Radioactive Diablo Scam Could Soon Be Twisting In The Wind.
- Norway To Consider Developing Nuclear Energy.
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.Why ‘no’ to NATO? U.S. and China hold first informal nuclear talks in five years, France’s Orano loses operating licence at major uranium mine in Niger. | SAFETY. ‘Lax’ nuclear security leaving UK at risk of cyber attacks from hostile nations. | SECRETS and LIES. Leaked doc reveals Israeli military KNEW of Hamas plan to raid and take hostages 2 weeks before Oct 7, Israeli news reports. |
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS The United Nations Security Council takes up Space Security – it might have been best if it had not.
| SPINBUSTER. Australia’s Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up? | WASTES. Specialised device tried to recover highly radioactive melted fuel at Fukushima plant. |
TECHNOLOGY. Researchers have doubts, but Bill Gates is hyping his new liquid-sodium nuclear reactor.URANIUM.
Iran’s Nuclear Point Man : We Won’t Bow to Pressure.
WAR and CONFLICT. Can Israel defeat Hamas? Its own military doesn’t seem to think so, clashing with Netanyahu. Delusional Netanyahu joins delusional Zelensky in seeking total victory when none possible. Israeli ‘extremist’ tells Australian audience Gaza should have been reduced to ashes.
Ukraine, Continued Aid, and the Prevailing Logic of Slaughter.
What nuclear annihilation could look like.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- Corporations are influencing government policy on nuclear weapons, a damning report shows.
- Congress will hold a hearing about the Sentinel missile’s exploding budget, but is it too little, too late?.
- NATO chief says members considering deployment of more nuclear weapons, Kremlin warns it’s an ‘escalation of tension’
- Top lawmakers sign off on massive US arms sale to Israel. Chutzpah: Netanyahu demands Biden give him more genocide weapons “to finish the job a lot faster.” Former Official: Biden State Department Bending US Law to Send Israel Weapons.
- Sweden opens doors to possible US nukes deployment.
- US greenlights new arms sale to Taiwan.
- Vandenberg Conducts Test Launch for Development of New Weapon System.
Here’s how bad the climate crisis will get before Dutton builds his first nuclear reactor
Fires, droughts, dead reefs, rising sea levels and 1.5 degrees of global warming. It’ll all happen before Dutton’s first nuclear plant is even opened.
CAM WILSON, JUN 20, 2024
Setting aside the numerous other criticisms of Peter Dutton’s one-page, uncosted nuclear plan, it’s worth pointing out that it completely relies on a crucial, non-renewable resource: time.
The Coalition’s plan is to get one nuclear power plant up and running by 2035, with more to come soon after. Experts say this timeline is implausible. But even if we take the word of a politician promising to deliver an enormous and technically challenging project far in the future over the expertise of subject matter authorities, 2035 is still more than a decade away……………………………… (Subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/20/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-climate-change-timeline/
Labor’s new climate chief Matt Kean says nuclear not viable
Phillip Coorey Political editor AFR 24 June 24
The Albanese government’s surprise climate appointee Matt Kean has been accused of treachery after he poured cold water on Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans, saying he believed the energy source would be “far too expensive” and take “far too long”.
Mr Kean, who was treasurer and energy minister in the previous NSW Liberal government, and who was once positively disposed towards nuclear power, announced last week he was quitting politics……………………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-s-new-climate-chief-matt-kean-says-nuclear-not-viable-20240624-p5jo3u
Is rooftop solar a fatal flaw in the Coalition’s grand nuclear plans?
Unlike nuclear, solar is also extraordinarily cheap, at least up-front, and large-scale projects can be delivered for comparative peanuts — and with blinding speed.
There are now almost 4 million homes spread across the country with solar installations, and the electricity they generate accounted for about 12 per cent of Australia’s needs last year.
It’s a constituency that politicians would tackle at their peril.
By energy reporter Daniel Mercer, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/rooftop-solar-potentially-lethal-flaw-in-coalition-nuclear-plans/104008864—
Earlier this year, the Coalition made a curious, significant move.
David Littleproud, the leader of the National Party, broke cover and wholeheartedly threw his support behind rooftop solar and household batteries.
The Nationals, he said, were not against renewable energy, only large-scale projects such as wind farms and transmission lines that were “tearing up the environment”.
Quite the opposite — the National Party wanted as many Australian households to get solar and batteries as would have them.
The pitch, which was quickly backed by opposition leader Peter Dutton, evidently had a few purposes.
For starters, it clearly distinguished the opposition from the Labor government, whose plan to decarbonise the power system rests largely on big-ticket renewable energy and transmission items.
In one fell swoop, the Coalition was able to say it was pro-renewable energy while being able to attack the government’s own green plans as environmentally and economically dangerous.
What’s more, the shift was a clear nod — or a sop, depending on who you ask — to the enormous and growing political clout of Australia’s solar-owning class.
Lastly, as both Mr Littleproud and Mr Dutton have repeatedly since pointed out, rooftop solar was an ideal complement for the central plank of the Coalition’s energy plans — nuclear.
Dangers in the detail?
The thinking behind that pivot has been on full display in recent days after the Coalition finally unveiled the major details of its energy policy for the upcoming federal election.
Under the plans, Australia would get seven nuclear power plants by the middle of the century — five large-scale ones across New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria and two small ones across South Australia and Western Australia.
No longer would the renewable emphasis be on scores of new wind and solar farms in regional areas and the high-voltage power lines needed to plug them into the grid.
It would instead be directed towards people’s rooftops, “an environment that you can’t destroy”, according to Mr Littleproud.
But hiding behind this veil of logic from the Coalition, energy experts reckon, is a potentially fatal flaw.
Solar power and nuclear power don’t play nicely together.
“That’s another untested and questionable part of this whole strategy,” said Dylan McConnell, a senior researcher and energy analyst at the University of NSW.
“What happens if we look into a system that is largely dominated by … a significant proportion of … behind-the-meter solar?
“People are going to continue to install rooftop solar and, in fact, the Coalition is supportive of that.
At the heart of this tension are the differing — and some argue incompatible — characteristics of nuclear and solar power.
On the one hand, nuclear reactors are the quintessential base-load generators that can — and want to — run at or near full capacity all the time.
Not only are they well-suited to the task technically, nuclear plants also have an economic imperative to operate flat-out given their monumental development costs.
These development costs are typically exacerbated by very long lead times — lead times subject to significant blowouts — in which debts are incurred and eye-watering amounts of interest can accrue.
The hare and the tortoise
Paying off those debts is paramount for the owner of a nuclear plant.
Failure to do so can be financially ruinous.
And the way to do that is to produce and sell as much electricity as is technically possible.
By contrast, solar power — specifically from photovoltaic cells typical of suburban rooftops — are the archetypal source of variable renewable energy.
They produce the most power when the sun is shining during the day, none when it’s not, and their output can be highly variable depending on the conditions.
Unlike nuclear, solar is also extraordinarily cheap, at least up-front, and large-scale projects can be delivered for comparative peanuts — and with blinding speed.
For a household, the cost of a 10-kilowatt system — an installation capable of meeting much of an average customer’s needs — can be done for a few thousand dollars.
In other words, if nuclear power is the proverbial tortoise, solar is the hare.
None of which is to dismiss the technical and economic challenges that solar presents, namely, how to back it up when it’s not producing — a very big task indeed.
But there is another crucial way in which solar and nuclear — or any base-load power such as coal, for that matter — clash.
Solar generation, by its very nature, peaks in the middle of the day.
As ever-more Australians install seemingly ever-more solar panels on their roofs, that peak in solar output is becoming truly epic in its proportions.
Rooftop solar is a beast
or example, there are times in South Australia when rooftop solar alone can account for more than the entire demand for electricity in the state.
To ensure South Australia’s electricity system doesn’t blow up, virtually all other generators have to pare back their output to a bare minimum or switch off entirely.
And even then, South Australia’s surplus rooftop solar generation has to be exported to other states or wasted.
Rooftop solar can do this because it’s largely uncontrolled and flows simply by dint of the sun shining.
It was partly for this reason that South Australia’s only base-load coal plant retired in 2016.
Of course, there are many more times when rooftop solar provides precisely 0 per cent of South Australia’s power needs.
But it all goes to illustrate the very real challenges that base-load nuclear would face, and the very real trends that are unlikely to grind to a halt between now and 2035, by when the Coalition hopes to have the first of its nuclear reactors up and running.
A quick glance at the numbers will tell you all you need to know about the popularity — and power — of rooftop solar in Australia.
There are now almost 4 million homes spread across the country with solar installations, and the electricity they generate accounted for about 12 per cent of Australia’s needs last year.
Bruce Mountain, the director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, summed it up this way: “Rooftop solar has few opponents.”
“It’s the one thing that keeps on growing despite the impasse at a national level,” Professor Mountain said.
“And I think there’s much more to go to realise the potential for that, most notably on factory roofs.”
Something has to give
Professor Mountain said “I’m kind of open to the idea of nuclear”, noting that it was being taken seriously by many other developed countries seeking to decarbonise their electricity supply.
He also pointed out that Australia’s development of large-scale renewable energy projects and, particularly, the transmission lines needed to support them, had hardly been a glowing success to date.
In any case, Professor Mountain suggested the fact the Coalition was proposing to own and operate any nuclear power stations was an acknowledgement that there was no commercial case for the technology in Australia.
On that point, Dr McConnell from the University of NSW agreed.
Dr McConnell said the economic obstacles in front of nuclear in Australia were enormous, and a big one was rooftop solar.
He said that in the almost inevitable event that nuclear and solar power clashed, something would have to give.
“The way you might achieve that in a system with lots of rooftop solar is by curtailing [switching off] rooftop solar,” Dr McConnell said.
“And that may not be politically popular either.”
Robert Barr, a power industry veteran and a member of the lobby group Nuclear for Climate, did not shy away from the potential for future tensions, noting that coal was already getting squeezed out of the system by solar.
But Dr Barr said any clash could be easily managed through a combination of price signals that encouraged householders to use more of their solar power and export less, and new reactor technology that could ramp up and down more effectively.
You could probably drop down from 100 per cent down comfortably to like 60 per cent output and on a daily basis,” Dr Barr said of new nuclear technology.
Ultimately, however, Dr Barr argued it may need to be households with solar panels that gave way to nuclear energy for the greater benefit of the electricity system.
Don’t mention the solar wars
Right now, he said, renewable energy was benefiting from taxpayer-funded subsidies that allowed wind and solar projects to make money even when the price of power was below $0.
These subsidies applied to both utility-scale projects and rooftop solar panels, through the large- and small-scale green energy targets introduced by the Rudd Labor government.
They effectively allow such projects to sell their electricity for less than zero — up to a point — and still be in the money.
In the future, Dr Barr said, those subsidies would no longer exist and renewable energy projects would start to be penalised each time the price of electricity went negative.
“I think what will happen is that nuclear will just tend to push out solar,” he said.
“There’ll be an incentive for customers to back off.
“And I think it wouldn’t be that difficult to build control systems to stop export of power at the domestic level.
“It’d be difficult for all the existing ones but for new ones, it just might require a little bit of smarts in them to achieve that particular end — it can be managed.”
Much like the Coalition’s grand policy pitch, those comments might be considered bold given the political heft wielded by millions of solar households.
Last decade, politicians of all stripes got into all manner of trouble when they tried to wind back subsidies known as feed-in-tariffs, which paid customers for their surplus solar power generation.
Solar households, egged on by the industry, mobilised, went on the attack and in many cases forced governments to bend to their will.
And that was at a time when the number of households with solar was a fraction of what it is now.
It’s a constituency that politicians would tackle at their peril.
Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up?
by Mike Foley, June 24, 2024, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-debate-is-getting-heated-but-whose-energy-plan-stacks-up-20240624-p5jo45.html
The Coalition’s nuclear power policy is less than a week old, but the political debate about Australia’s energy future has been raging since. The opposition’s claims about both its policy and the renewables-focused government plan have prompted plenty of questions about their veracity.
We take a look through the biggest of those talking points to see whether they stack up.
*** Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ plan will cost more than $1 trillion: False
The opposition says it will cost more than $1 trillion for the Albanese government to reach its target of boosting renewables to 82 per cent of the electricity grid by 2030. Currently, about 40 per cent of the grid is renewable electricity.
Nationals Leader David Littleproud on Sunday attributed the numbers to Net Zero Australia: a think tank of academics from University of Melbourne, University of Queensland and Princeton University.
The think tank calculated the estimated cost of reaching net zero across the entire economy, not just the electricity grid.
They found that it would cost more than $1 trillion by 2030 and up to $9 trillion by 2050, largely driven by private investment. The figure includes a range of actions, from integrating electric vehicles into the transport fleet to heavy industry, such as smelting switching from gas to electric power.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts that the cost of reaching 82 per cent renewables, again largely driven by private investment in wind and solar farms and transmission lines, will cost $121 billion in today’s money.
The Albanese government has also committed $20 billion to underwrite transmission-line construction and has set up a fund called the Capacity Investment Scheme, estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars. It will underwrite new renewable projects, and if private investors fail to achieve forecast returns, taxpayers could be on the hook to subsidise operations but will get a cut of the profits when they exceed a set threshold.
*** Nuclear energy will deliver cheaper power bills: False
Dutton said on Wednesday last week his plan would “see Australia achieve our three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”.
The opposition has committed to release the costings of their plan before the next election.
Many experts disagree, arguing nuclear power delivers the most expensive form of electricity.
The same report cited by the opposition for a $1 trillion cost of the renewables rollout said there is “no role” for nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.
“We only see a potential role for nuclear electricity generation if its cost falls sharply and the growth of renewables is constrained,” Net Zero Australia’s report in July last year said.
Internationally recognised financial services firm Lazard also found renewable energy sources continued to be much cheaper than nuclear. It said onshore wind was the cheapest, with a cost between $US25 and $US73 per megawatt hour. The second cheapest was large-scale solar at between $US29 and $US92. Nuclear was the most expensive, at between $US145 and $US222.
The CSIRO found the cheapest electricity would come from a grid that draws 90 per cent of its power from renewables, which would supply electricity for a cost of between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030 – factoring in $40 billion in transmission lines and batteries to back up renewables.
CSIRO calculated that a large-scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040.
** The renewables rollout needs 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines: False
“Labor has promised 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires, there’s no transparency on where that will go, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we don’t believe in that model,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said last week.
The AEMO releases a document each year called the Integrated System Plan, after consulting private industry, that details a road map of what the most efficient energy system will look like in coming years, including new infrastructure, up to 2050.
The Integrated System Plan includes directives set by policymakers, like the Albanese government’s commitment to reach 82 per cent of energy generation coming from renewables by 2030, and to hit net zero emissions by 2030.
The most recent plan, from January, says around 5000 kilometres of transmission lines are needed in the next 10 years to deliver the Albanese government’s goals, including 4000 kilometres of new lines and upgrading 1000 kilometres of existing lines. AEMO said 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines will be needed for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The 28,000-kilometre figure cited by the opposition resembles the 26,000 kilometres of transmission AEMO said would be needed by 2050 if Australia was to transform its economy to a clean energy export powerhouse, including large-scale production of green hydrogen and decarbonisation of other industrial processes.
*** The first reactor would be built before 2037: Questionable
The opposition says if elected, they would build a nuclear reactor and have it hooked up to the grid within 12 years of forming a government.
Its nuclear energy policy document, released last week, states that depending on what technology it chooses to prioritise, a large-scale reactor would start generating electricity by 2037 and a small modular reactor (SMR) by 2035. SMRs are a developing design not yet in commercial production.
This rollout would be as quick as anywhere in the world. The United Arab Emirates has set the global pace. It announced in 2008 that it would build four reactors under contract from Korean company KEPCO. Construction began in 2012, and the first reactor connected to the grid in 2020.
There are significant differences between the UAE and Australia. The former is a dictatorship without comparable labour laws or planning regulations that relies on cheap imported labour, whereas the latter has rigorous workforce protections, environmental laws and planning processes.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said a Coalition government would establish a Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority that would assess each of the seven nuclear sites it has identified and determine what specific type of reactor would be built where, while also committing to two and half years of community consultation. A new safety and management regime would need to be developed, and parliament would have to repeal the current federal ban on nuclear energy within this timeframe.
If the Coalition forms government in May next year, following the consultation phase, it assumes construction could begin in late 2027 and would take 10 years for a large-scale reactor. That is far quicker than other Western nations have achieved recently.
The UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear plant began construction in 2018 and is not expected to be completed until at least 2030. The only reactor now under construction in France is the Flamanville EPR. Construction began in 2007 and is currently incomplete. A reactor at Olkiluoto Island, Finland, began in 2005 and was completed in 2022.
*** The annual waste from a reactor fits into a Coke can: False
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claim that the annual waste generated by an SMR amounts to the size of a Coke can is incorrect, experts say, with such facilities likely to generate multiple tonnes of high-level radioactive waste each year.
“If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year,” Dutton said on Tuesday.
Multiple experts told this masthead a 450-megawatt reactor referenced by Dutton would generate many tonnes of waste a year.
Large-scale reactors, which have been deployed in 32 countries around the world, have a typical capacity of 1000 megawatts and generate about 30 tonnes of used fuel a year. This includes high-level radioactive waste toxic to humans for tens of thousands of years and weapons-grade plutonium.
SMRs are still under commercial development, and expert opinion is divided over whether they would produce more or less waste per unit of energy compared to a large reactor.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science said it was safe to assume an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology, but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said.
Mike Foley is the climate and energy correspondent for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Connect via email.
Keep up to date on Australia’s media quagmire on nuclear power
This is still the most interesting article of all
Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?
Below is a list of news articles. Now I have not here included the pro nuclear propaganda ones, nor the ravings of the very right-wing shock jocks of commercial radio – such as Melbourne’s 3AW. But you can find all that stuff on mainstream, mainly Murdoch media. The ABC is doing its best to stay afloat and actually give the facts. I am sure that those brave female TV and radio voices are now under quite vicious attack – Patricia Karvelas, Sarah Ferguson and Laura Tingle
I will try to keep this list up-to date – it is a daunting task –
National politics Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full . No costing, no clear timelines, no easy legal path: deep scepticism over Dutton’s nuclear plan is warranted Nuclear plan is fiscal irresponsibility on an epic scale and rank political opportunism. Dutton’s nuclear lights are out and no one’s home. Peter Dutton launches highly personal attack on Anthony Albanese, calling him ‘a child in a man’s body’ while spruiking his new nuclear direction. Peter Dutton vows to override state nuclear bans as he steps up attack on PM. Peter Dutton is seated aloft the nuclear tiger, hoping not to get eaten.
Local politics. Nuclear thuggery: Coalition will not take no for an answer from local communities or site owners.
Climate change policy. Here’s how bad the climate crisis will get before Dutton builds his first nuclear reactor. Labor’s new climate chief Matt Kean says nuclear not viable. Peter Dutton’s flimsy charade is first and foremost a gas plan not a nuclear power plan. Coalition’s climate and energy policy in disarray as opposition splits over nuclear and renewables.
Economics Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say . The insane amount it could cost to turn Australia nuclear – as new detail in Peter Dutton’s bold plan is revealed. Nuclear engineer dismisses Peter Dutton’s claim that small modular reactors could be commercially viable soon. Wrong reaction: Coalition’s nuclear dream offers no clarity on technology, cost, timing, or wastes. ‘Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan is an economic disaster that would leave Australians paying more for electrici.ty’. Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble floats in a fantasy world of cheap infrastructure. UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated.
Energy, Coalition won’t say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election. Is rooftop solar a fatal flaw in the Coalition’s grand nuclear plans? Nuclear lobby concedes rooftop solar will have to make way for reactors.
Health Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks
Indigenous issues, How a British nuclear testing program ‘forced poison’ onto Maralinga Traditional Owners.
Technology. Dutton’s plan to build nuclear plants on former coal sites not as easy as it seems Over budget and plagued with delays: UK nuclear lessons for Australia.
Sabotaging renewables. There’s one real Coalition energy policy now: sabotaging renewables.
Secrecy. Port Augusta mayor and local MP kept in the dark about Liberal Coalition’s plant to site nuclear reactors there.
Site locations for reactors. Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants. Coalition set to announce long-awaited nuclear details.
Safety. Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up? Some of the Coalition’s proposed nuclear locations are near fault lines — is that a problem?
Spinbuster. It’s time to go nuclear on the Coalition’s stupidity. Ziggy Switkowski and another big nuclear back-flip . Does the Coalition’s case for nuclear power stack up? We factcheck seven key claims. A Coalition pie-in-the-sky nuclear nightmare.
Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and unavoidable radiation health risks
By Tony Webb, 24 June 24, https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-industry-workers-face-significant-inevitable-and-unavoidable-radiation-health-risks/
Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
In addition to the important arguments against the coalition policy that currently proposes building seven nuclear power plants to replace closing coal fired generators, notably that such:
will be likely cost about twice that of firmed renewable generation and take at least 15 years to build – and this in the context where most nuclear plant construction worldwide appears to routinely involve a doubling of both cost and time to build
– and so are dangerously irrelevant to meeting the existential challenge to reduce carbon and methane emissions that are driving climate change;
will require legislative changes at state and federal levels that are to say the least unlikely to be achieved;ignores the challenge of developing workforce skills to manage this technology;
ignores the as yet intractable if not insoluble problem of managing long lived nuclear wastes;
and poses significant risks to the public in the event of nuclear accidents as witnessed in the USA, Ukraine/former USSR, and Japan;
There is also an inevitable and unavoidable risk to workers in the industry and public ‘downwind’ from such reactors from routine exposure to ionising radiation.
This last has to date received little attention and whenever raised results in dismissive but misleading arguments from the nuclear industry advocates, notably that any such exposures to individuals are small and pose little, indeed ‘acceptable’ health risks compared to other risks faced in day to day living and working. Tackling this misinformation as part of the campaign has much to offer in convincing the nuclear target communities and the workers in these that might be seduced by prospects of employment in these facilities that the risks they face are far from insignificant – that, as a community they will face an increase in the incidence of fatal and ‘treatable / curable’ cancers, an increase in other, notably cardio vascular diseases and increased risk of genetic damage affecting children and future generations.
Allow me to introduce myself. I have been an active campaigner on the health effects of ionising radiation since the late 1970s. With two colleagues in 1978 I founded the UK based Radiation and Health Information Service that highlighted the evidence showing the risk estimates from radiation exposure, on which the national and international occupational and public exposure limits were based, grossly under-represented the actual risk.
This radiation-health argument was developed as part of a national campaign that resulted in a significant change of the, until then, pro-nuclear policies of UK unions with members in the industry and a review of Trade Union Congress policy in 1979. It was also an integral part of the union-led national Anti-Nuclear Campaign opposing the Thatcher government’s nuclear expansion – revealed in leaked cabinet minutes as part of the government strategy for undermining the power of the unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the Transport and General Workers Union, (T&GWU) and the General and Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trades union (GMBATU). In late 1980 I took this work on Occupational Radiation risks to the USA establishing the US Radiation and Health Labor Project, auspiced by the Foundation for National Progress / Mother Jones Magazine, that built union support across the country for AFL-CIO policy calling for a reduction in the occupational exposure limit.
Subsequently I worked as a consultant to the Canadian union (CPSU – local 2000) representing workers in the nuclear power industry and built a Canadian coalition of five Unions representing workers exposed to radiation on the job. Linking these North American union demands with those of UK and European unions (also similar concerns from unions in Australia following a 1988 organising tour) reinforced pressures from within the scientific community – notably the US Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) committee.
These sustained pressures led eventually to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reducing the recommended limits for permissible occupational (and public) exposures in 1991. Despite evidence that would have justified a ten-fold reduction (from the 50 mSv annual occupational limit to a limit of 5 mSv) the ICRP limit was only reduced by 40% (to 20 mSv a year but with individual exposures still permitted to 50 mSv in any year so long as the average over 5 years was no higher than 20 mSv).
Since then, a large-scale study of UK, EU, and US nuclear industry workers has shown radiation-induced cancer risks to be on average 2.6 times higher than the estimates used to set the ICRP limits. To put it in simple if statistical terms, the lifetime cancer risk for a worker exposed to the permissible annual dose of radiation over say a 25-year career would be of the order of 6.5% higher than normal. To this should be added the significant health effects of non-fatal cancers, an approximate doubling of the normal rate of cardio-vascular disease and a not insignificant increase in genetic damage to workers children and future generations. Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
What needs to be more clearly understood however is that the concern is not just in relation to risks faced by individuals exposed on the job, or from relatively small amounts of radiation released from routine operations of nuclear plants. What is of far greater public concern is the impact of the collective exposure. What is not fully appreciated is that there is simply no safe level of exposure – any dose however small may be the one that causes damage at cellular level in the human body that may show up years later as cancer, genetic damage or some other health effect. it is the total/collective dose that will determine the number of such health effects. Spreading the dose over a larger population will reduce the risk to any individual but not the total health effects. Indeed, it may increase it. An individual affected by cancer can only die once.
These arguments carry weight. They formed a significant part if the discussions within the 2016 South Australian government’s ‘Citizens Jury’ convened to consider proposals to import and store around a third of the world’s nuclear wastes. The concern about radiation and health received special note in the report of this jury to the SA Premier that a two-thirds majority said ‘no – under any circumstances’ to the radioactive waste proposal. The issues can also form the basis for increased collaboration between the trade union, environment, medical reform and public health movements as was the case in the mid 1990s when UK, Labour MP Frank Cook convened a Radiation Roundtable that brought together representatives of these constituencies.
So, within the current debate about a possible Australian Nuclear Power program – alongside the arguments already made about its excessive cost, extended construction time frame, ill-fit within an essential decentralised renewable energy program, risks of major accidents, and the intractable problems of multi-generation waste management, can we please add this concern over health effects that will inevitably result from occupational and public exposures to radiation. Can we particularly focus the attention of trade unions and their members in the seven former coal-fired generation-dependent communities on the effect of these exposures on health of workers who might seek to be employed in operating these facilities and on the health of their families, neighbours, and future generations.
A key demand from unions should be that the occupational limit for annual radiation exposures cbe reduced from the current ICRP level of 20 mSv to a maximum of 5 mSv a year with a lifetime limit of 50 mSV. This revision of standards would put real pressure on the nuclear industry – the current uranium mining and any future enrichment, fuel fabrication, nuclear generation, fuel reprocessing, and waste management – to keep such exposures as low as possible. In the unlikely event of any of the reactor proposals getting the go-ahead there should be baseline monitoring of the health of the community and any workers employed so that any detrimental increase in health effects can be detected early and possibly remediated in the future.
Antinuclear 