Marrickville Peace Group (MPG) calls for keeping Australia’s nuclear bans, and particularly emphasises the nuclear waste problem

In brief , the pro nuclear power lobby presents a trouble free new generation front which assumes
just as trouble free social licence. This presentation flies in the face of proven historical fact.

Submission No. 21. to Senate Inquiry This submission argues that the current climate crisis creates an urgent need forAustralia to source its energy from renewable and not nuclear technology. Nuclear energy supply is
deeply flawed when examined wholistically. The safe long term disposal of nuclear waste (HLW)
issue is one to which no country in the world has a satisfactory answer to. It is an issue that will not
go away. The lack of wholistic social licence for nuclear waste disposal renders Australia in an
untenable position both internally and externally/internationally.

I write as a member of Marrickville Peace Group (MPG), situated in the Inner West of Sydney,
Federal Electorate of Grayndler. MPG learns with alarm of the attempt by the LNP to repeat a
pattern, not unknown of the LNP , of setting aside good legislation in order to return Australia to less
enlightened times. MPG objects most strenuously to the move to expand the viability of its current
nuclear technology to cater to the nuclear power industry. . The Private Senators Bill: Environment
and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022) was put
forward by 9 Coalition Senators who have been incentivized by the government signing on to buy
nuclear-powered submarines (according to Senator Matt Canavan.). This promotion of things
nuclear to collateral expansion is arguably one of the more pernicious aspects of the AUKUS deal.

The world is in the grip of a climate crisis, the result of using carbon rich fossil fuels, once though to
be a great boon, as a source of energy. Gradually, since 1896 in fact, when scientist Svante Arrenius
first predicted the greenhouse effect, the world has come to know that climate change is real. Thus
the way we have sourced our energy has brought us to an environmental crisis. The irony is that
nuclear is proposed as counter to the environmental crisis brought about by fossil fuels, when the
disposal of High Level Waste (HLW) is itself a harbinger of deadly waste disposal issues. There is no
proven solution for managing high-level nuclear waste produced in power reactors. No operating
deep underground repository for high-level nuclear waste exists. MPG maintains that the
introduction of nuclear energy into its power mix is a case of replacing one environmental crisis with
another. (Don’t Nuke the Climate Submission Guide)………………………………………………………

The proposal to introduce nuclear power is a long term (and a very costly) project : the average time
to establish a nuclear power station, from planning to operational stage, is between fifteen and
twenty years.. It is not without good reasons that there is an increasing call for the power future to
be renewable and not nuclear.

There is more to the objection to nuclear power than simply the establishment timeframe. | Don’t
nuke the Climate! )

The Glasgow Statement (COP26 2021, signed by 479 international organisations , lists a cluster of
many defective factors associated with nuclear based on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report. The primary summary statement “We need an urgent global shift to
clean and renewable energy and national governments need to actively facilitate and manage the
transition from reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear to renewable energy”.

A summary of criticisms of the nuclear power option include:

• The nuclear industry has a history of displacing, disrupting and damaging the health and
  rights of workers and communities:
• It diverts resources away from renewable energy technology;
• Nuclear is slow, expensive and dangerous.
• It is not carbon neutral-almost every stage of the nuclear chain requires additional nonnuclear
  energy inputs. And
• It poses unique security and waste management risks.
• Nuclear power is unsustainable . Nuclear power relies on uranium mining. Like coal mining
  this causes adverse environmental impacts and puts workers and communities at risk. It is a
  thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of precious water, from uranium mining and
  processing through to reactor cooling. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats that
  are being exacerbated by climate impacts, including dwindling and warming water sources,
  sea-level rise, drought, jelly-fish swarms and increasing storm severity
• It is expensive. Nuclear power is now one of the most capital intensive and expensive ways
  to produce electricity and costs continue to rise. (including establishment and decommission
  expenses).
• Climate threats :Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated
  by climate change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm
  damage, drought, and jelly-fish swarms. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum states: “You
  need to solve global warming for nuclear plants to survive “
• Nuclear is increasingly vulnerable security risks. – witness current events at the Zaporizhzhia
  power plant in Ukraine.

In Australia, the saga of nuclear waste disposal is long and unsatisfactory. It is characterized by a
high level of dysfunctionality……………………………………………….

THE REALITY OF EXTERNAL INTERESTS was dramatically revealed in the late 90’s when a closely
guarded secret in the form of a consortium Pangea Resources (80% owned by British Nuclear Fuels
Limited (BNFL) had been conducting research and discussions about establishing an international
high-level nuclear waste repository in Australia. A corporate video was leaked to Friends of the Earth
(UK) in the late 1990s. Until this video was leaked, Australians had no idea that we were being
targeted as the world’s nuclear dump. ……………………………………………..

The Friends of the Earth Australia site reveals also there is a list of very prominent politicians / expoliticians
supporting the development of a high level nuclear waste dump in Australia to take waste
from overseas include: Liberal Senator Judith Troeth called for Australia to build nuclear power
reactors and for the high-level waste to be dumped at Muckaty in the NT; former Prime Minister
Bob Hawke ;former foreign minister Alexander Downer; former foreign minister Gareth Evans .
Liberal/National Coalition Senators refused to support a Senate motion opposing an international
nuclear dump in May 2006. In 2005 Martin Ferguson responded to Bob Hawke’s call for Australia to
establish a high level waste dump by saying: “In scientific terms Bob Hawke is right. Australia
internationally could be regarded as a good place to actually bury it deep in the ground”.

THE WAY THINGS ARE SEEN – WHAT TO BELIEVE ?

The Minerals Council (TMC) is clearly supportive of the return to nuclear proposal : Removing the
Prohibition on Nuclear Power.

What is interesting is the selectivity of the MC’s arguments, which are summarised below :
Nuclear energy is zero emissions baseload energy. Fact check : nuclear reactors do not produce air
pollution or carbon dioxide while operating BUT : When it comes to nuclear, uranium extraction,
transport and processing produces emissions. The long and complex construction process of nuclear
power plants also releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned sites.

Nuclear power is affordable ; Fact check The cost of wind and solar PV has decreased by 70-90 %
while nuclear costs have increased by 33%. (Don’t Nuke the Climate Submission guide. Op.cit.)

Nuclear power is safe, Fact check : For whom is it safe ? Of all the claims of the Nuclear lobby, this
surely is the hardest to sell .

Furthermore some aspects of this claim e.g. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and
declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal. It is remarkable that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says exactly the opposite: “Nuclear power plants
have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat.”

Further, in referring to the “well publicized accidents” the Minerals Council deftly highlights “no
radiation fatalities” of two of the three. In the public mind it surely would loom large that there re
huge consequences to nuclear accidents, of which, as of 2014, there have been over 100 serious
nuclear accidents..the definition of which is : “an event that has led to significant consequences to
people, the environment or the facility. Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large
radioactivity release to the environment, reactor core melt.

TMC has a sales pitch which minimizes to the point of denial.
Nuclear power produces low waste : Fact check :This is a strangely deceptive claim. The “low” refers
merely to volume, NOT TO TOXICITY. The half Life of Plutonium is 24,000 years and of Uranium 238
is 4.5 billion years As argued above in some detail, Nuclear power produces High Level Waste (HLW)
which the world simply does not know, in real terms, how to deal with. Australia has no facility for
HLW. Reprocessing is in line to become a congested international waiting line. Given the possibility
of a wrong turn politically, Australia is a prime target for HLW dumping. The Removing Nuclear
Energy Prohibition Bill is an invitation to the world to focus on Australia as a nuclear waste dump…………

In brief , the pro nuclear power lobby presents a trouble free new generation front which assumes
just as trouble free social licence. This presentation flies in the face of proven historical fact.

February 25, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

The Independent Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) rejects proposed changes to laws prohibiting nuclear power.

Recommendation 1
Reject the proposed amendments to bills
The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Recommendation 2
Threat priorities
The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency:
(a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of
the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Recommendation 3
Nuclear energy
The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear
energy source.

Submission No.17. The Independent Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) Public Submission to the Inquiry into Environment andOther Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022

About IPAN
IPAN is a national umbrella organisation of community, peace, faith and environmental groups and trade
unions around Australia with an interest in peace and security. IPAN aims to build public dialogue and pressure
for change to a truly independent foreign policy for Australia – one in which our government plays a positive
role in solving international conflicts peacefully.

The announcement of the Inquiry into Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear
Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 comes at a very critical time for our country.

IPAN feels very strongly about providing a contribution to this inquiry and seeks to make comments on the
proposal to both amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to remove the
prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations; and to amend the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the Minister for Environment
and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain
nuclear installations. These Acts currently expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation
of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.

Australia currently faces rapidly changing strategic circumstances, global instability and planetary threats to
human security. This set of interlinking challenges, among others, requires an urgent and holistic response
from the Australian government.

Recognising the circumstances outlined above, in 2020 IPAN initiated its own national public inquiry to ‘Explore
the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’ (the People’s Inquiry) so as to determine a path that would
lead Australia towards a genuinely independent, peaceful and secure defence and foreign policy.
IPAN led ‘People’s Inquiry: Exploring the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia’

The People’s Inquiry comprehensively questioned the foundations and assumptions underpinning the
cornerstone of Australia’s security – the Australia-US Alliance – across several impact areas: military and
defence, foreign policy, First Nations peoples, politics, society, workers, economy, and the environment.

The People’s Inquiry received 283 submissions from individuals and organisations across the country. An
interim report was released in October 2021 and the full report was released on 22 November 2022.

IPAN’s submission to this current inquiry draws, in part, on the findings and recommendations of the People’s
Inquiry, specifically those related to the area of impact on First Nation’s people, military and defence, foreign
policy and the environment. In particular, some submissions focused directly on issues surrounding nuclear
energy including concerns around storage of nuclear waste and consultation around land use (IPAN 2022a.
pp.21,23).
For a full copy of the Inquiry Report go to https://independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/

Introduction
IPAN’S interest in matters related to nuclear energy, nuclear installations and nuclear weapons

IPAN has had a longstanding concern about nuclear issues, as a network of organisations and individuals
motivated by the desire to see peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and greatly concerned that our
world never sees a nuclear bomb dropped again – in particular such as the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in 1945, leading to the immediate and subsequent deaths of over two hundred thousand people.

To this end, IPAN (and many member organisations and individual members) has been a very strong supporter
of the international Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) regarding the adoption of a UN treaty to
prohibit nuclear weapons – i.e. the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

IPAN has been heartened by the positive steps that have been taken by the new Federal government, in
attending the first Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in Vienna in June and ending Australia’s opposition tothe treaty by abstaining on a resolution at the UN First Committee after the previous government’s practice of voting ‘No’

Proposed Amendments to Federal Legislation
IPAN is concerned about the proposals in the bill to amend the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Act 1998 to remove the prohibition on the construction or operation of certain nuclear installations;
and in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove the prohibition on the
Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving or considering actions relating to the construction or
operation of certain nuclear installations.

IPAN’ broad concerns with the use of nuclear power
First and foremost, IPAN believes that radiation is dangerous to people and the environment and that it is
critical to reduce human exposure to it. In addition, IPAN believes that the adoption of nuclear power in
Australia would increase electricity costs, slow the transition to a low-carbon economy and introduce the
potential for catastrophic accidents.

IPAN is also concerned about the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with huge
volumes required for the production of nuclear energy. We are also concerned about the contentious issue of
where to store nuclear waste, given the associated long-term risks of storage.

This submission therefore makes a number of key points in relation to the proposed amendments to the two
acts – which if adopted would remove the blanket prohibition on the construction or operation of certain
nuclear facilities. IPAN believes that the current blanket prohibition acts as a very important safeguard against
the risks and dangers associated with the nuclear industry – and that to remove this blanket prohibition would
be to the detriment of the Australian community, the environment and the Australian ecosystem.

Factors for the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications to consider in its
decision regarding the proposed amendments

1 The dangers of radiation and risks of human exposure …………………………………………………….

2. Lack of compliance in the uranium mining industry.…………………………………………………….

3 The links between nuclear technology and military nuclear technology’

IPAN is in particular concerned with the links between civil nuclear technology and military nuclear technology.
The ACF have highlighted that uranium is a “dual use fuel and nuclear is a dual use technology – it can power a reactor or a weapon” and they have described how the current conflict in Ukraine has seen “the weaponization of nuclear facilities and the threat of an uncontrolled radiation release”, even if the Russian army does not use its nuclear weapons (ACF 2022a, p.1 cited in IPAN, 2022, p. 71).

The development of nuclear energy could be seen as a slippery slope to the eventual development of nuclearpowered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. It is important to recognise that nuclear power
programs have provided cover for numerous weapons programs over many years. An expansion of nuclear
power would simply worsen the situation……………………

Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed military or terrorist targets. The current situation in Ukraine illustrates the
risks:…………………………..

The current ban on nuclear energy in Australia provides a very important safeguard to avoid any chance of the
eventual development of nuclear-powered weapons and even nuclear weapons themselves. We must continue
this ban…………………………………………………………

4 The Costs of Nuclear Power

As pointed out in the second reading speech (by Senator Matt Canavan) of the ‘Environment and Other
Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Wednesday, 28 September 2022, the building of a nuclear plant requires high capital costs and long construction times. While the Senator also
argues that nuclear plants have relatively low operating costs – other factors must be considered, such as the
cost of rehabilitation of mines and the cost of storage of nuclear waste, as well as the many risks involved………………………………………………

5. The Costs of nuclear energy vs renewable energy sources

IPAN believes that it is important to address a number of the claims made by Senator Canavan in the Second
reading Speech (Australian Parliament 2022), for example where he asserted that “The relative costs of nuclear
compare well to renewable energy. Between 1965 and 2018 the world spent $2 trillion on nuclear compared to $2.3 trillion for solar and wind, yet nuclear today produces around double the electricity than that of solar and
wind.” He also added that costs may reduce soon.

As figures from Lazard Asset Investment (2021) in their annual Levelized Cost of Energy, Levelized Cost of
Storage, and Levelized Cost of Hydrogen Report showed, the cost of nuclear energy is far greater than that of
renewables, as per the following table. [ on original]

The costs of renewable technologies continue to decline globally, albeit at a slowing pace, reflecting reductions
in capital costs, increased competition as the sector continues to mature and continued improvements in scale
and technology. “Since 2010, the cost of energy has dropped by 82% for photovoltaic solar, by 47% for
concentrated solar energy (CSP), by 39% for onshore wind and by 29% for wind offshore.”

Unlike the costs of wind and solar, the cost of nuclear power has actually risen over time, since 2008, the
“projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by fourfold…and it is still rising”.

These figures are backed up by recent research from CSIRO and the national energy market operator (the
Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO), with the 2022 CSIRO-AEMO GenCost report also showing that
nuclear power is simply not competitive with renewables, with 2030 cost estimates for Australia as follows

• A$136-326/MWh for Nuclear (small modular):
• A$61-82/MWh for 90 percent wind and solar PV with integration costs (transmission, storage and
  synchronous condensers) necessary to allow these variable renewables to provide 90 percent of electricity in
  the National Electricity Market. (CSIOR/AEMO, 2022).

IPAN believes that there is simply no economic case for nuclear power in Australia.

Senator Canavan also referred to the trials of Small Modular Reactors that are happening in a range of
countries currently and that “if they become a commercial prospect, their modular nature may deliver
substantial cost savings through mass production”.

The ACF/ICAN have made the very clear point that SMRs however are unproven and do not actually make
electricity in the real world, and further to this, the US Academy of Science in 2018 stated that “several
hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and
deployment over the next several decades” (cited in ACF/ICAN 2022)……………………………………………………

6 Environmental Impacts
Urgent and Effective Action required.

The chaotic climate events that have punished Australia in recent years demand urgent and effective action.That urgency disqualifies the most expensive and slowest response (as outlined immediately above). In thisway, expense is not simply a consideration for investors. In addition, the imperative to better manage climate change is a strong argument against nuclear power

Storage of Nuclear Waste
IPAN is concerned that despite years of debate and attempted negotiations around the storage of nuclear
waste, it is now 2023 and there is still no agreement on a proven solution to manage or isolate and dispose of
high-level radioactive waste that has been produced in power reactors. Currently there is not one single
operating deep underground repository for high-level nuclear waste across the world……………………………

………………………………………

Another very significant factor is the extreme reluctance on the part of communities earmarked as a site or
potential site for nuclear waste. There are clear issues of racism in the choice of nuclear waste dump sites.

A pertinent point is made by Native American activist, Winona LaDuke,
The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive
waste problem for fifty years, and they’ve finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an
Indian reservation.

Three years of electricity in a reactor leaves a legacy of 100,000 years of waste – a massive inter-generational
burden, which represents a “Poor risk to return ratio” and damage to the environment for hundreds of
thousands of years……………………………………………….

Water resources required
There are also significant issues around the water resources required for the production of nuclear energy, with
a huge volume of precious and at times scarce water resources required on an ongoing basis for the production
of nuclear energy. As an example from Australia, the Mulga Rock uranium project (200 kms east of Kalgoorlie – near the Queen Victoria nature reserve in the Great Victoria Desert), one of four proposed uranium
mines given approval by WA’s former Liberal-National government Environmental approvals, would see the
“extraction of 15 million litres of water per day, would create 32 million tonnes of tailings, threatens vulnerable species including the Sandhill Dunnart” (ACF/ICAN 2022)…………………………………………………….

Australia’s current independent stance in banning nuclear energy

AS rightly pointed out, by Senator Canavan in the Second Reading Speech, Australia is “the only developed
country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy (which has been in effect since the 10
December 1999 decision of Federal Parliament Australia is also one of only three countries within the 20
richest nations in the world to not have nuclear energy………………….. this must be a cause of celebration, not derision. IPAN feels that it is disingenuous of Senator Canavan to refer to Australia’s “status as a nuclear outcast”. While Senator Canavan highlights the fact
that “Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world” – this is not a reason to develop nuclear
energy, for all of the reasons that IPAN is highlighting in this submission.

Decisions about investing in nuclear energy
IPAN has concerns about Senator Canavan’s assertion that “The potential for high costs is not a reason to ban
anyone building a power station” and that “Decisions about the relative profitability of different investments
should be left to the businesses making those decisions”. This is not how public policy works. There are a rangeof processes and provisions that must be worked through with any public policy decision, with environmental impact assessments being one such example. Decisions such as these cannot happen in a void or be left purelyto the market (usually subsidised, in the case of nuclear power).

It also seems rather bewildering that the Senator also makes the seemingly very obvious comment that
“Our environmental laws should focus on protecting Australia’s natural environment.”. The proposal to amend
the two Acts in question represents precisely the kind of scenario where environmental laws should come in to
play – to assess any negative impacts on the natural environment that would result from future use of nuclearenergy.

Previous Inquiries regarding nuclear energy in Australia
A number of recent and very recent inquiries are very relevant to the issues being examined in this current
inquiry. It is fair to say each of the three inquiries listed did not come out favourably for the nuclear industry.

• 2019: Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia https://www.aph.gov.au/nuclearpower
• 2016: SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle RC http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/
• 2006: Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER)
  https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3960972

The 2006 UMPNER was particularly comprehensive and very well resourced and contained a relatively high
proportion of people who were pro-nuclear – yet it concluded with a resounding, reluctant ‘no’.

10 Impact on First Nations peoples
First Nations’ peoples and their lands are especially impacted by the nuclear industry, both historically (sincethe UK nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s in outback South Australia) and presently.

11 Human rights issues

……………………………… There are clearly human rights implications whenever there is a proposal for the introduction or use of a substance or material that has the potential for catastrophic accidents and where there are inherent risks and challenges, such as those associated with the use of nuclear energy and high-level nuclear waste management. The exclusion of First Nations Peoples from their traditional lands used as the waste repository site represents a major denial of the human rights of those First Nations People.

12 Why Australia should sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)…………………………………………………………………………………..

Recommendations
IPAN submits the following recommendations to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Environment and Communications:

Recommendation 1
Reject the proposed amendments to bills
The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications maintain the status quo in relation to
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Recommendation 2
Threat priorities
The Australian Government should prioritise as a matter of urgency:
(a) The two existential threats of climate change and nuclear war, and we support joining the Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prioritising climate change would necessitate a re-orientation of
the role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Recommendation 3
Nuclear energy
The Australian Government should legislate the use of warships or submarines that only use a non-nuclear
energy source.

February 25, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s top 11 Environmental Organisations – Submission to Senate – Nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.

Submission No. 14 Combined Environmental Organisations: Friends of the Earth Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Wilderness Society, Conservation Council of WA, Conservation SA, Nature Conservation Council (NSW), Environment Victoria, Queensland Conservation Council, Environment Centre NT and Environs Kimberley (PDF 1470 KB) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of these prudent, long-standing protections.

Proponents of the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 (The Bill) are seeking to remove these prohibitions, claiming this is needed to address climate change. However nuclear power is – at best ‒ a distraction to effective climate action.

It is important to note that promoters of nuclear power in Australia are not suggesting we build the nuclear technology that currently exists in the commercial world. The reactors that exist today are increasingly seen as a high cost and high-risk way to make electricity. They are also directly linked to high-level radioactive waste and nuclear security, weapons and terrorism concerns.

Nuclear promoters are staking their hopes – and Australia’s energy future – on technology which is uncertain and unproven. At the time of the 2021 Glasgow COP26, the UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on Climate Change Selwin Hart stated that nations seeking to base their climate response on technologies that have not yet been developed are “reckless and irresponsible.”1
The good news about the renewed nuclear discussion is that it highlights that business as usual with fossil fuels is not an option. The bad news is the very real risk of delay, distraction and a failure to advance a just energy transition.

In response to the 2019 federal inquiry by the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy into the pre-requisites for nuclear power, over 60 Australian organisations representing millions of Australians, and including trade unions, Indigenous, environment, health, faith and peace groups, signed a joint statement opposing nuclear power:

“Our nation faces urgent energy challenges. Against a backdrop of increasing climate impacts and scientific evidence the need for a clean and renewable energy transition is clear and irrefutable. All levels of government need to actively facilitate and manage Australia’s accelerated transition from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation.
The transition to clean, safe, renewable energy should also re-power the national economy. The development and commercialisation of manufacturing, infrastructure and new energy thinking is already generating employment and opportunity. This should be grown to provide skilled and sustainable jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia.
There should be no debate about the need for this energy transition, or that it is already occurring. However, choices and decisions are needed to make sure that the transition best meets the interests of workers, affected communities and the broader Australian society.
Against this context the federal government has initiated an Inquiry into whether domestic nuclear power has a role in this necessary energy transition. Our organisations, representing a diverse cross section of the Australian community, strongly maintain that nuclear power has no role to play in Australia’s energy future.
Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need. We maintain this for a range of factors, including:

Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive wastes that pose a direct human and environmental threat for many thousands of years and impose a profound inter-generational burden. Radioactive waste management is costly, complex, contested and unresolved, globally and in the current Australian context. Nuclear power cannot be considered a clean source of energy given its intractable legacy of nuclear waste.

Water: Nuclear power is a thirsty industry that consumes large volumes of water, from uranium mining and processing through to reactor cooling. Australia is a dry nation where water is an important resource and supply is often uncertain.

Time: Nuclear power is a slow response to a pressing problem. Nuclear reactors are slow to build and license. Globally, reactors routinely take ten years or more to construct and time over-runs are common. Construction and commercialisation of nuclear reactors in Australia would be further delayed by the lack of nuclear engineers, a specialised workforce, and a licensing, regulatory and insurance framework.

Cost: Nuclear power is highly capital intensive and a very expensive way to produce electricity. The 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission concluded nuclear power was not economically viable. The controversial Hinkley reactors being constructed in the UK will cost more than $35 billion and lock in high cost power for consumers for decades. Cost estimates of other reactors under construction in Europe and the US range from $17 billion upwards and all are many billions of dollars over-budget and many years behind schedule. Renewable energy is simply the cheapest form of new generation electricity as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded in their December 2018 report.

Security: Nuclear power plants have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets and pose a major security threat. This in turn would likely see an increase in policing and security operations and costs and a commensurate impact on civil liberties and public access to information. Other nations in our region may view Australian nuclear aspirations with suspicion and concern given that many aspects of the technology and knowledge base are the same as those required for nuclear weapons. On many levels nuclear is a power source that undermines confidence.

Inflexible or unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible generators of electricity. They lack capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and not well suited to modern energy grids or markets. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. This is no basis for a national energy policy.

Safety: All human made systems fail. When nuclear power fails it does so on a massive scale. The human, environmental and economic costs of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been massive and continue. Decommissioning and cleaning up old reactors and nuclear sites, even in the absence of any accidents, is technically challenging and very costly.

Unlawful and unpopular: Nuclear power and nuclear reactors are prohibited under existing federal, state and territory laws. The nuclear sector is highly contested and does not enjoy broad political, stakeholder or community support. A 2015 IPSOS poll found that support among Australians for solar power (78‒87%) and wind power (72%) is far higher than support for coal (23%) and nuclear (26%).

Disproportionate impacts: The nuclear industry has a history of adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities, lands and waters. This began in the 1950s with British atomic testing and continues today with uranium mining and proposed nuclear waste dumps. These problems would be magnified if Australia ever advanced domestic nuclear power.

Better alternatives: If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not. Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.

The path ahead: Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology.
We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future.
Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is simply not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”……………………………………………………………………

Australia cannot afford to lose more time on energy ‘culture-wars’ or on the false promise of unproven and non-commercial technology.

The former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Allison Macfarlane, provided a further reality check in 2021 stating, “when it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late.”9

Wishful thinking is no substitute for real world evidence and action, or for effective climate action.

Renewable energy exists in the real world and this is the crucial decade when real climate action is urgently needed to make the required transition to a low carbon future.

It is our considered view that the pursuit of nuclear power would delay and undermine efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions and address the challenges and opportunities of climate change.

Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.

Recommendation:
Our groups call on the Committee to support effective climate action by recommending against the proposed Bill and reaffirming support for the existing and prudent federal nuclear prohibitions.

{This lengthy submission goes on to provide more detail on the topics mentioned above, and on economics, small nuclear reactors and other “advanced nuclear technologies, waste problems, security and weapons prolifertaio risks. ] more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Friends of the Earth Adelaide – Submission to Senate – nuclear power an unrealistic distraction

Submission no 9 to the Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
We are responding to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee’s inquiry
into the “Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy
Prohibitions) Bill 2022”.

The purpose of the Bill is to remove Australia’s ban on nuclear power. Although superficially
such an amendment might seem innocuous, because it would not in itself lead automatically or
inevitably to the construction of nuclear power plants, in fact it would be pernicious for the
following reasons:

1) It would divert attention from the immediate need for an urgent response to climate change.
Even if a decision was made today to introduce nuclear energy to Australia, not a single kilowatthour
of electricity would be generated from nuclear reactors for over a decade. But the climate
cannot wait that long. Fortunately, there are proven and realistic alternatives that can be acquired
much sooner and much more cheaply, especially in a country as rich in renewable energy
potential as Australia.

2) It would mislead the public into thinking that nuclear energy might be a realistic alternative for
Australia. Viewed objectively, both the historical record and the current status of nuclear power
demonstrate that nuclear energy is neither reliable, cost effective, nor fit for purpose in the
Australian context. If there is any argument for the use of nuclear power, it only applies to
countries which already have nuclear power plants and which need to make a decision about
whether or not to continue operating existing plants. In that case, given that the upfront cost of
existing plants has already been sunk, there may be an argument for continuing their operation
while shifting to a 100% renewables-based zero emissions energy system. However, constructing
new plants just diverts investment from cleaner and more cost-effective alternatives.

Some people who promote nuclear power are sincere, but misinformed or deluded. Others are
quite cynical. There are those who recognise that by promoting nuclear power they can serve
their own interests by delaying the energy transformation and prolonging an energy system which
is based on large-scale centralised generation and the use of fossil fuels. Then there are those who
promote nuclear energy to give them a point of strategic difference with their political opponents.
They are looking for another angle on the climate wars that have blighted the energy policy
landscape for over a decade.

Australia cannot afford to give credence to naïve or cynical arguments in favour of nuclear
power. We must rapidly shift from an energy system based on fossil fuels to a system based on
renewable energy backed by various forms of storage (e.g. batteries and pumped hydro). This
requires governments, industry and the general public to be highly focused on real solutions. The
last thing we need is for vested interests and nuclear true believers to muddy the waters with
fanciful talk of nuclear power.
The best way to send a clear message to industry and the community that Australia’s future lies in
renewable not nuclear energy is to maintain the ban on nuclear power.
See the notes and references listed below for background and supporting argument.
Philip White
Friends of the Earth Adelaide
adelaide.office@foe.org.au

Notes and References

1. Nuclear energy is too expensive and will come too late………………………….
2. Nuclear energy is a barrier to renewable energy……………….
3. There are realistic alternatives………………..
4. A few persistent myths
   4.1 Baseload Power
   ‘Baseload power’ is an outdated notion promulgated by nuclear and fossil fuel apologists in order
   to mislead policy makers and the general public………….. 4.2 Lessons of the war in Ukraine………… 4.3 All the other problems with nuclear energy still apply..Nuclear energy generates waste that must be isolated for millennia………… more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Electrical Trades Union of Australia Submission to Senate : Nuclear power a dangerous and costly distraction.

Submission no. 3.

I write on behalf of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia with reference to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022.

The ETU has a long history of opposing the nuclear industry that began when returning servicemen who were ETU members shared their experiences of the atrocities of World War II and through the democratic processes of our Union voted to adopt the Unions policy of opposition to this industry. That policy has been revisited many times since, as the Union kept abreast of developments in the nuclear industry as well as learned of the far-reaching impacts of the many catastrophic nuclear incidents that have occurred since and the worrying issues of waste management and the connection to weapons industries.
I enclose our September 2019

I enclose our September 2019 submission to a previous federal inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy. All the matters contained in that submission continue to be relevant today. Since our submission, many risk factors such as the high cost and slow build times, the insurance risk and the intractability of waste management have only increased.
This inquiry is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real effort needed to rapidly decarbonise the Australian economy in a manner that delivers secure jobs, social justice, cheaper energy and lower emissions.
The Australian people neither need, nor want a nuclear future.

See ETU 2018 Submission Electrical trades Union of Australia dispels the hype about Generation IV Nuclear Reactors  https://antinuclear.net/2015/09/21/electrical-trades-union-of-australia-dispels-the-hype-about-generation-iv-nuclear-reactors/

more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Noel Wauchope. Submission to Senate calls for retaining Australia’s nuclear bans.

Submission no. 102 to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications. Regarding Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 – Noel Wauchope

Australia’s prohibition of the nuclear industry has served us well.  We are among the majority of nations that are not burdened with the costs, the toxic wastes, the safety and security problems, and the weapons proliferation risks that burden the minority, the 32 countries that do have nuclear power. Australia is lucky in that regard.

But we’re unlucky in that Australia is the continent most at risk from global heating.  We’re experiencing right now the weather extremes that herald rapid climate change.  So, the time for Australia to act – is NOW.     In 20 or 30 years – it will be too late.   But 20 or 30 years is the (optimistic) time frame for getting nuclear reactors operating – whether they be large or small reactors.  That is, of course, assuming that nuclear reactors would really be effective in cutting greenhouse emissions, –  a questionable assumption, anyway. 

The push in Australia is for small nuclear reactors (SMRs)  . We must remember that with small nuclear reactors, there needs to be a number of them, to produce anything like the amount of energy that a large nuclear reactor produces.  So for Australia the small nuclear reactor plan would mean an absurdly large number of these SMRs to be brought into operation very quickly, across the nation, to have any effect on reducing greenhouse gases.

We also need to remember that these SMRs are still only in the design phase – not operating on any land in the world. Is Australia to be the guinea pig for trying out an expensive experiment?

In the meantime Australia is a leader in adopting renewable energy technologies, both large scale and small. Wind and solar power are here NOW – faster and ever cheaper to install, with constantly improving battery systems for back-up.

My worry is that Australia’s resources,human, financial and physical, could be redirected away from critically needed energy conservation and renewable systems, towards an expensive and untested nuclear power system.

This distraction from practical and clean technologies   would also bring the problems of long-lasting radioactive waste, and of nuclear facilities as a target for terrorism.

The experience of other countries should provide a salutary lesson for Australians.   France – the much touted nuclear power champion,  had a very worrying time in recent summers –   nuclear reactors cutting back due to heat problems and water shortage.  France is still struggling in their winter, and now has to import electricity.  If France’s nuclear fleet can’t cope with summer heat, what hope has Australia got?

All the nuclear countries are struggling with the problem of disposal of nuclear wastes. Finland’s much vaunted underground disposal facility, (at enormous cost) will barely have enough space for Finland’s own nuclear wastes, let alone anyone else’s.   Small nuclear reactors do produce a smaller percentage of wastes, but so highly toxic that they form a big problem, too

While most big nuclear reactors world-wide are placed near the coast, vulnerable to sea-level rise, that doesn’t make small nuclear reactors safer. The safety plans for small nuclear reactors are quite confusing.  For example, there’s a strong suggestion that they should be placed underground – a supposedly safer and more secure location.    But what if there’s a flood?

If Australia maintains its nuclear prohibitions, our direction towards a clean energy future is clear.   Removal of these bans would bring not only a plethora  of  pro-nuclear promotional advertising, but the beginning of a costly experiment in an old technology, nuclear power, whose time is over –   the SMR drive is its last gasp.      All this at a time when Australia desperately needs to take clean energy actions – to both reduce the rate global warming and adapt to the impacts of climate change. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

February 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment