Antinuclear

Ted O’Brien’s not so excellent nuclear adventure

September 5, 2024 ,  https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ted-o-brien-s-not-so-excellent-nuclear-adventure-20240905-p5k88l.html

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Can we please stop referring to the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy as a policy or even a plan? (“Coalition has cash plan for nuclear towns”, 5/9)? Nuclear power is prohibited in this country. This, combined with other hurdles such as considerable expense, decade-long build times, high water use and waste disposal risks, highlights just how ridiculously improbable it is that nuclear power will ever eventuate in Australia. We must call out opposition spokesman Ted O’Brien’s preposterous, piecemeal energy suggestions for what they are: a divisive, distraction that will prolong the use of coal and gas, worsening the climate crisis.
Amy Hiller, Kew

Coalition appears all at sea with nuclear idea
At first, the Coalition said it would consult with communities before any decisions were made about nuclear reactors. Then in June, David Littleproud said the Coalition was prepared to make “tough decisions” about building nuclear reactors where local communities opposed them.
Now, those communities will be “showered with gifts” (“Cash splash for nuclear towns under Coalition plan”, 5/9), in the form of dividends from nuclear power.
The Coalition appears all at sea with their nuclear idea, while continuing their denigration of our transition to renewables. They falsely promise dividends on the basis of a taxpayer-funded, hugely costly and theoretically unavailable-until-2040s technology. And for it to be viable, renewables would have to be switched off.
Fiona Colin, Malvern East

Coalition still not producing evidence for its case
Once again the Coalition is claiming that nuclear power plants – the first operating by 2037 – would supply the “cheapest electricity in the nation”. And again they are doing so without providing the supporting financial modelling.
Perhaps the experience with the UK’s first nuclear plant project in well over 20 years provides the explanation as to why they are being so coy. First, when initially proposed, the two unit 3200 MW Hinkley Point C in Somerset was expected to supply power by 2017 but is now not expected to do so until around 2030. Second, its owner EDF has indicated recently that the cost could increase to £46 billion ($92 billion), approximately double the initial estimate made in 2015. And this with a plant designed by an experienced French company which currently operates 46 nuclear units, being built in a country with a well-established nuclear power industry.
Kevin Bailey, Croydon

There is a ″⁣mature″⁣ debate about nuclear in regions
It was interesting to see Ted O’Brien, the man who would be energy minister if the Coalition wins the next election, claiming Australia is having an ″⁣immature″⁣ energy debate which excludes nuclear advocates (″⁣Coalition has cash plan for nuclear towns″⁣, 5/9).
I was at the Gippsland New Energy Conference this week acting as a facilitator in a session titled ″⁣Beyond Coal: Navigating the Future of Energy″⁣. Across the conference, we heard speakers from all kinds of new energy: solar, offshore wind, battery storage and indeed, nuclear.
Serious questions were asked about nuclear, including who will handle an emergency if there is one, who will have to give up water to power the thirsty nuclear reactor, who would be responsible for the multi-billion dollar rehabilitation of the open cut mine if the coal-fired power station is compulsorily acquired by the federal government against the wishes of the owner, where the toxic waste would be stored for 100,000 years, which roads would we use to transport it there, and how a government-owned nuclear reactor could make any profit given the energy is so expensive.
There were some 800 people at the new energy conference this year: Rarely, have I seen a community approach a tough issue with such goodwill.
Tony Wolfe, Warragul

September 8, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized