No walk in the park for nuclear reactors at life’s end
Canberra Times, By Poppy Johnston, April 20 2025
It may feel far, far away but the energy sources getting hooked up to the grid today will eventually need to be put out to pasture.
Decommissioning is a major undertaking for any industrial facility yet for nuclear power plants – on the table under the federal coalition’s alternative pathway to net zero – Australia’s lack of experience raises a host of unknowns.
Walking through the process of dismantling a nuclear power plant, Australian National University energy transition expert Ken Baldwin says the first step is removing the used radioactive fuel and coolant to be stored safely elsewhere.
Next is dismantling the rest of the plant, with some of the components surrounding the reactor made slightly radioactive during a lifetime of operation.
That radioactivity is “relatively short-lived” compared to the human lifespan-defying decay rates of more potent nuclear waste.
“Often what happens is the nuclear plant might be left in a safe state with the fuel and the coolant removed for a number of years to allow that radioactivity to decay,” Professor Baldwin tells AAP.
After that time has lapsed, work begins on removing what’s left.
Globally, the 2024 World Nuclear Industry Status Report has 213 closed power reactors on its count and 23 fully decommissioned.
Dismantling reactors takes 20 years, on average.
Retiring nuclear plants is a “horses for courses” proposition, Prof Baldwin says, with costs and timelines dependent on the type of facility, decommissioning plans and regulations.
A rule of thumb is 10-15 per cent of the total capital cost of the facility, equivalent to somewhere between $780 million and $3 billion for a standard 1 gigawatt nuclear plant, and adding roughly five per cent to electricity bills.
End-of-life costs are covered in a variety of ways, including putting aside funds before the plant is built………………….
For the United Kingdom’s 3260MW Hinkley Point C, developers were required to set aside 7.2 billion pounds, or almost 15 billion Australian dollars, for clean-up in 2016.
However the agency noted there was uncertainty about the actual bill and taxpayers could be on the hook if the cap was exceeded.
The threat of higher-than-expected decommissioning costs was raised by mining billionaire and green steel and renewables proponent Andrew Forrest at a business breakfast in Perth earlier in the month.
“You see France spending $60 billion to bring up two gigawatts but they’re not talking about the 14 nuclear power plants they’re having to completely take down and try and return to the environment,” he said.
“I go to the best engineers in the world and they’ve got no idea what that’s going to cost.”
Opposition leader Peter Dutton highlighted the costs of dismantling wind turbines when asked for clarity on his plan for decommissioning the seven nuclear power plants his party plans to build if it wins the federal election………………………………… https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8946374/no-walk-in-the-park-for-nuclear-reactors-at-lifes-end/
HALF-BAKED!
Tony Webb
New Community Journal, Vol 23 (1) Issue 89 p 37
The Coalition’s plan for our energy future including Nuclear power plants is based on:
Delivering half the electricity anticipated as needed to power homes and industry
and transition to zero carbon emissions.
Assuming cost of building nukes in Australia which has no experience of doing this
will be about half what the most nuke-favourable evidence world-wide from
countries that do have the experience suggests is needed.
Assuming these can be built in less than half the time evidence suggests they take to
build.
Ignoring the evidence that current official radiation-induced cancer-risk-estimates,
on which standards for worker OH&S are based, are less than half what the evidence
from nuclear power plant workers in Europe and North America suggests is the
inevitable and unavoidable reality. Also, ignoring that the cardio-vascular and heart
disease risk from such exposures is double that expected and the childhood
leukaemia risk in the community near these plants has been similarly under-
estimated.
Not to mention that the coalition’s costings ignore the long-term costs of
decommissioning these plants, the management, and (perhaps . . . . Dutton dream
on!) eventually finding a solution for long-term storage (never ‘disposal’) of the
highly radioactive wastes –
Nor to mention the fact that state and federal legislation currently prohibits such
nuclear power plants and is unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future.
And – despite this overwhelming evidence that the whole silly idea is half-baked – in
fact a smokescreen for continuing climate denial and extending use of polluting and
planet life-threatening fossil fuels, inface of this the Coalition doubles down on it
with backing from sections of the media and the fossil fuel lobby.
Dotty and Cretinous: Reviewing AUKUS
April 20, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/dotty-and-cretinous-reviewing-aukus/
It was a deal for the cretinous, hammered out by the less than bright for less than honourable goals. But AUKUS, the trilateral security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is now finally receiving the broader opprobrium it should have had from the outset. Importantly, criticism is coming from those who have, at points, swooned at the prospect of acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability assuming, erroneously, that Australia somehow needs it.
A report by the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank has found that AUKUS, despite the increasingly vain promise of supplying the Royal Australian Navy with nuclear powered submarines in 2032, has already become its own, insatiable beast. As beast it is, with the cost over the next four years for the submarine program coming in at A$17.3 billion, exceeding by some margin the capital budget of the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) at A$12.7 billion. One of the authors of the report, Marcus Hellyer, notes that “in terms of acquisition spending, the SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine] enterprise has already become the ADF’s [Australian Defence Force’s] ‘fourth service’.”
The report notes some remarkable figures. Expenditure on SSNs is estimated to be somewhere between A$53 billion and A$63 billion between 2024-2034, with the next five years of the decade costing approximately A$20 billion. The amount left over for the following years comes in at $33 to $44 billion, necessitating a target of $10 billion annually by the end of the financial decade in the early 2030s. What is astounding is the amount being swallowed up by the ADF’s investment program in maritime capabilities, which will, over the coming decade, come to 38% of the total investment.
The SSN program has made its fair share in distorting the budget. The decade to 2033-4 features a total budget of A$330 billion. But the SSN budget of $53-63 billion puts nuclear powered submarines at 16.1% to 19.1% more than either the domains of land and air relevant to Australia’s defence. “It’s hard to grasp how unusual this situation is,” the report notes with gravity. “Moreover, it’s one that will endure for decades, since the key elements of the maritime domain (SSNs and the two frigate programs) will still be in acquisition well into the 2040s. It’s quite possible that Defence itself doesn’t grasp the situation that it’s gotten into.”
To add to the more specialist literature calling large parts of AUKUS expenditure into question comes the emergence of disquiet in political ranks. Despite the craven and cowardly bipartisan approval of Australia’s dottiest military venture to date, former Labor senator Doug Cameron, who fronts the Labor Against War group, is a symptom of growing dissent. “There are other more realistic and cost-effective strategies to protect our territorial integrity without subjugating ourselves to a dangerous, unpredictable and unworthy Trump administration.”
On the other side of the political aisle, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is pessimistically inclined to the view that Australia will never get those much heralded submarines. “There will be Australian sailors serving on US submarines, and we’ll provide them with a base in Western Australia.” Furthermore, Australia would have “lost both sovereignty and security and a lot of money as well.”
The spineless disposition of Australia’s political cadres may prove irrelevant to the forced obsolescence of the agreement, given the scrutiny of AUKUS in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The pugilistic nature of the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration on all countries, friendly or adversarial, has brought particular focus on the demands on naval and submarine construction. Senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, told an AUKUS dinner in Washington this month that “We are already having trouble getting these ships and subs on time [and] on budget. Increase those prices – it’s going to be a problem.”
Taine’s point is logical enough, given that steel and aluminium have been targeted by particularly hefty rates. Given the array of products requiring exchange in the AUKUS arrangement, tariffs would, the senator reasons, “slow us down and make things harder.”
Another blow also looms. On April 9, the White House ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comb through the procurement of US Navy vessels in order “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes” and contribute to the Trump administration’s Maritime Action Plan. Consistent with Trump’s near obsession of reviving national industry, the order seeks “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.”
Australian taxpayers have every reason to be further worried about this, given the order’s emphasis that US departments and agencies pursue “all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the US to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the US.” Given that that US submarine industrial base is already promised $US3 billion from Australia’s pockets, with $500 million already transferred in February, the delicious exploitation of Canberra’s stupidity continues apace.
In the UK, the House of Commons Defence Committee this month announced a parliamentary inquiry into the defence pact, which will evaluate the agreement in light of changes that have taken place since 2021. “AUKUS has been underway for three years now,” remarked Defence Committee chairman and Labour MP, Tan Dhesi. “The inquiry will examine the progress made against each of the two pillars, and ask how any challenges could be addressed.”
The first pillar, perennially spectral, stresses the submarine component, both in terms of transferring Virginia class SSNs to Australia and the construction of a bespoke nuclear-powered AUKUS submarine; the second focuses on the technological spread of artificial intelligence, quantum capabilities, hypersonic advances and cyber warfare. While Dhesi hopes that the inquiry may throw up the possibility of expanding the second pillar, beady eyes will be keen to see the near non-existent state regarding the first. But even the second pillar lacks definition, prompting Kaine to suggest the need for “some definition and some choices”. Nebulous, amorphous and foolish, this absurd pact continues to sunder.
Dutton’s nuclear revival smells rotten to Gens Y and Z
By Glenn Davies | 19 April 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/duttons-nuclear-revival-smells-rotten-to-gens-y-and-z,19640
Forty years on from the first Palm Sunday anti-nuclear marches, Peter Dutton’s attempt to revive nuclear power is thankfully still a hard sell, writes history editor Dr Glenn Davies.
THIS YEAR, Palm Sunday, the traditional day of protest for peace, will occur on 13 April.
Australia has a long history of resisting uranium mining and nuclear development. During the 1980s, Palm Sundays in Australia were occasions for enormous anti-nuclear rallies all across the country, reaching a peak in 1985.
On 19 June 2024, Peter Dutton announced:
“…nuclear energy for Australia is an idea whose time has come.”
At the same time, he released “the seven locations, located at a power station that has closed or is scheduled to close, where we propose to build zero-emissions nuclear power plants”.
Nothing announced by Peter Dutton today changes the fact that nuclear energy is, according to reams of expert analysis, economically unfeasible in Australia. This is as true today as it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Palm Sunday peace march is an annual ecumenical event that draws people from many faith backgrounds to march for nonviolent approaches to contentious public policies. The event is based on the account of Jesus’ procession into Jerusalem, which some see as an anti-imperial protest — a demonstration designed to mock the obscene pomp of the Roman Empire. Palm Sunday is now considered an opportunity to join together to demonstrate for peace and social justice.
A major focus of activism in Australia during the anti-nuclear movement in the 1980s was the campaign against uranium mining, as Australia holds the world’s largest reserves of this mineral.
The Australian anti-nuclear movement emerged in the late 1970s in opposition to uranium mining, nuclear proliferation, the presence of U.S. bases and French atomic testing in the Pacific.
During the 1980s, Palm Sundays in Australia saw enormous anti-nuclear rallies all across the country.
The annual Palm Sunday rallies were organised by the People for Nuclear Disarmament (PND), beginning in 1982 and reaching a peak in 1985.
On Palm Sunday in 1982, an estimated 100,000 Australians participated in anti-nuclear rallies in the nation’s biggest cities. In Melbourne, more than 40,000 people marched to call for nuclear disarmament and highlight the multiple dangers associated with uranium mining and nuclear power. They were joined by a similar sized rally in Sydney. During the same week 5000 marched in Brisbane while numerous other protests were held across Australia.
While 1984 was the year of George Orwell’s dystopian future, the 1980s were less about a surveillance society than nuclear fear. In 1984, Labor introduced the three-mine policy as a result of heavy pressure from anti-nuclear groups. This was also a time when many Australians were concerned that the secret defence bases at Pine Gap, North West Cape and Nurrungar, run jointly with the United States on Australian soil, were “high priority” nuclear targets.
An estimated 250,000 people took part in Palm Sunday peace marches in April and the Nuclear Disarmament Party gained seven per cent of the vote in the December 1984 Election and won a Senate seat. In addition, the election of the Lange Labor Party Government in New Zealand in July, resulted in New Zealand banning visits by ships that might be carrying nuclear weapons and were also considered targets in a nuclear war
The refusal of New Zealand to permit a visit by the USS Buchanan in February of that year threatened the future of the ANZUS alliance.
Australia did not follow the example of New Zealand.
In 1985, more than 350,000 people marched across Australia in Palm Sunday anti-nuclear rallies demanding an end to Australia’s uranium mining and exports, abolishing nuclear weapons and creating a nuclear-free zone across the Pacific region. The biggest rally was in Sydney, where 170,000 people brought the city to a standstill.
In 1985, I was a first-year James Cook University student living at University Hall. JCU students in Townsville supported the massive Palm Sunday rallies by our southern cousins in a public protest by tagging on the end of the May Day (Labour Day) march along The Strand.
As we marched behind the Townsville unionists with their hats and placards, remembering and publicly affirming the sacrifices their forebears had made – the mateship, the loyalty and the determination to build and protect the freedom and rights we now enjoy – we realised this march was about empowerment in a world where individuals still too often have little control over their own destiny when it comes to the workplace. And this was the lesson we young students learned on that day from our older working brothers, as we also were desperately looking for more say in the safety of our world.
May is a beautiful time of the year in Townsville, with breezy, high-skied blue days. Marching along The Strand, we were proclaiming our concerns for ensuring a better and safer world for all our futures.
It would be irresponsible for us not to chant:
Two, four, six, eight. We don’t want to radiate.
One, two, three, four. We don’t want no nuclear war.
By the late 1980s, the political, social and economic mood had swung firmly in favour of the anti-nuclear movement. Though it was clear that the three already functioning mines would not be shut down, the falling price of uranium, coupled with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, ensured that there would not be a strong effort to broaden Australia’s nuclear program.
During the 1980s, there was a mushroom cloud shadow cast over Australia. The protests of the anti-nuclear movement were successful in linking the horror of nuclear war to the zeitgeist of the 1980s. The anti-nuclear movement served an important function in Australian politics, where it visibly prevented any further pro-nuclear policies from being enacted by the Australian Government.
Former Labor Environment Minister Peter Garrett is the lead singer of rock band Midnight Oil and a prominent nuclear disarmament activist since the 1980s.
He recently stated in a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed:
Younger voters understandably won’t know that a generation their age once packed the Sidney Myer Music Bowl with Midnight Oil, INXS and other friends to “Stop the Drop”.
They won’t remember our Nuclear Disarmament Party campaign, which won Senate seats in Western Australia and NSW in the ’80s.
They can’t know what it was like to grow up during the Cold War era or live through horrific meltdowns at the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants, which were also “completely safe” until the day that they weren’t.
But generations Y and Z can still smell a rotten idea when they give it a good sniff.
The use of nuclear energy as a solution to Australia’s future energy needs is still a hard sell.
Times have obviously changed since the 1970s, but significant political and economic barriers remain — and the problem of cost is still unsolved. This is compounded by apocalyptic visions of global destruction as part of our contemporary zeitgeist. It’s just that in its modern incarnation, the apocalypse has become more varied.
Gone is the single event; now we have a multiple-choice-question-sheet worth of ways to end our time on Earth. In the 2020s, the apocalypse continues to figure heavily in social life with constant references to wild weather, global financial crises, lone wolf terrorism, environmental collapse and zombie plagues.
And perhaps the greatest fear of all is that in this fracturing of fear may come complacency.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will continue to struggle to get traction, not only during the current Federal Election campaign but as long as the spirit of the 1985 Palm Sunday protest march lives.
10 reasons why nuclear energy is a bad idea for Australia
There’s a lot of information and disinformation out there on nuclear energy. These are my 10 reasons why nuclear energy would be a bad idea for Australia
By Arthur Wyns, University of Melbourne, https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/10-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-a-bad-idea-for-australia 16 April 2025
As always seems to be the way, energy and climate policy is proving to be an area of contention between the major parties in Australia’s 2025 election.
One issue that’s provoked a lot of discussion and confusion is the Liberal-National Coalition’s proposal to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia.
It’s a controversial idea that’s opposed by Labor, the Greens, many independent MPs and some Liberal groups.
Both the Climate Change Authority and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) concluded that the deployment of nuclear energy in Australia would significantly increase the country’s energy prices and cause us to miss our climate change targets.
1. Too expensive
It’s extremely expensive to build and operate nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. Independent analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that building nuclear power in Australia could see average household electricity bills rise by $AUD665 a year.
Estimates by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) for the 2024-2025 GenCost Report also found renewables are the cheapest option for any new electricity generation.
2. Too slow
Even if we drop everything else and throw all our weight behind nuclear energy, it wouldn’t play a role in Australia’s energy grid for more than a decade.
It took an average of 11 years to build the nuclear reactors that came online around the world in 2023 – largely in countries with a well-established nuclear industry, like China.
In Australia, CSIRO estimates it would take at least 15 years before we’d reach the first nuclear generation.
3. Too risky
Nuclear accidents are rare but they have devastating consequences.
The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima disaster in 2011 contaminated large areas and continue to impact the health of hundreds of thousands of people. Both disasters caused a rise in anti-nuclear sentiments in the Australian public.
They also led to the majority of German citizens supporting an end to nuclear power in the country, with the three last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany taken offline in 2023.
4. Hard to build
Nuclear power stations are huge and complicated infrastructure projects that almost never stay on schedule.
The UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant construction is now running 14 years late and is costing three times more than it was estimated: a whopping $AUD90 billion.
Smaller nuclear power plants, known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), have been proposed as an alternative, but there are no known commercial SMRs operational anywhere in the world.
The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the US has since cancelled its first project due to rising costs.
5. Produces nuclear waste
Once in operation, nuclear reactors continuously produce radioactive waste. Generally, this waste is buried underground, where it remains radioactive for thousands of years.
Australia already produces a relatively small amount of low-level radioactive waste for some medical and research activities.
However, Australia currently doesn’t have any waste storage facilities to process high-level radioactive waste that would be produced by nuclear reactors – and recent efforts to build the country’s first radioactive waste storage facility have failed.
6. Uses lots of water
Nuclear reactors need to be cooled constantly, which requires high volumes of water.
It might not make sense to switch to a water-intensive energy source in the driest inhabited continent in the world, which is already facing increasing droughts and extreme heat.
Even countries like France and Sweden – with dramatically cooler climates compared to Australia – are increasingly being forced to shut down their nuclear power plants during warm periods when their cooling water heats up.
This means they then have to import energy from neighbouring countries.
7. No energy security
Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations are old and increasingly breaking down, with over 60 per cent of our coal-generating capacity now more than 40 years old.
Even in the most optimistic scenarios, nuclear power is unlikely to come online before 2040, by which time all of Australia’s coal plants will have retired, according to the National Electricity Market.
In other words, the timelines for a coal-to-nuclear transition don’t add up.
Extending the life of these ageing coal-power plants would mean spending billions to prop up coal rather than investing in updating the electricity grid and expanding more cost-effective and readily available forms of energy like renewables.
8. No expertise
While nuclear generation is well established in many countries, it has never been deployed in Australia.
We currently lack the trained workforce and technical capability required for building a large-scale nuclear reactor.
Any attempt to go nuclear would leave Australia reliant on foreign companies and expertise. This is something we’re seeing play out in building and maintaining the nuclear submarines Australia agreed to host as part of the AUKUS deal.
In comparison, the renewable energy industry already creates more than 25,000 local jobs in Australia and this is expected to grow.
9. We’ll miss our climate goals
While nuclear energy is a form of low-emissions energy in many countries with established pre-existing nuclear facilities, focusing on the development of new nuclear energy in Australia is a diversion from taking real climate action.
Australia’s Climate Change Authority (CCA) recently released a detailed analysis concluding that a nuclear pathway for Australia would result in an additional two billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
It would extend the use of some coal-fired generators, slow down the uptake of clean technologies, and obstruct existing national plans to deliver 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.
10. Illegal in Australia
In the late 1990s, the Australian Federal Government introduced several new laws banning nuclear energy, including the National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act (1998).
This Act prohibited the development of any new nuclear power sites in Australia.
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) also introduced rules preventing the construction or operation of any facilities that generate nuclear power.
Building nuclear reactors is currently illegal in every Australian state and territory.
Ultimately, pursuing a lengthy, expensive and potentially harmful energy source is a misguided step for Australia, particularly when we have all the resources and potential to make us a renewable energy superpower.
Arthur Wyns is a research fellow at Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne. He has written widely on climate change and global health issues, and regularly advises national governments and UN agencies. In 2023-2024, Arthur was the senior health advisor to the government of the United Arab Emirates as the host of the COP28 UN climate conference. He was a climate change advisor to the World Health Organization during 2019-2023, where he represented WHO at the UN climate negotiations, authored several UN reports on climate change and health, and acted as WHO’s speechwriter on climate change. Arthur is an editor of the Journal of Climate and Health and sits on the editorial board of ClimaHealth, the knowledge platform of the WHO-WMO Joint Office for Climate and Health.
The Australian investors betting big on fusion – the “holy grail” of nuclear tech
ReNewEconomy, Rachel Williamson, Apr 17, 2025
One of Australia’s biggest super funds is backing nuclear tech – but not the kind being pitched by the federal Coalition.
Hostplus is investing in fusion energy.
CIO Sam Sicilia says a combination of tech advances in the last five years and a youthful member base means fusion is now a real option for big, patient investors…………………
Fusion power is the holy grail of energy technologies: it makes more energy than nuclear fission, produces less waste, doesn’t create anything that could be used in a weapon, and has zero risk of meltdown.
The truth is more complicated, not least because the longest ever sustained reaction was only achieved in January, when China’s “artificial sun” reactor in Heifei managed a whole 17 minutes. …………………..
And with almost half a billion dollars of funding sunk into the industry last year, the race is on for companies ranging from Commonwealth Fusion Systems – the MIT spinout that is leading so far and Hostplus’ investment pick – to Australian startup HB11………………………………………………………………………………
If this sounds ambitious for a technology that just five years ago was still wrestling with major functional problems, it isn’t to people in the industry – even in Australia.
Patrick Burr leads the student project to build a donut-shaped tokamak fusion reactor – just a little one – at University of New South Wales (UNSW). He also works with Australia’s only home-grown fusion company, HB11 Energy.
He says commercialisation of fusion energy is now an engineering problem that requires money and people…………………………………………………………………………..
Australia as a fusion power? Maybe
Matt Bungey is taking a bet that fusion energy will be ready for launch – in Australia – by the late 2030s.
Bungey is a partner at Western Australian venture fund Foxglove Capital and an investor in another fusion frontrunner, Type One, which recently set up an Australian subsidiary.
He believes fusion should be part of a diverse energy strategy even if by the late-2030s renewables and storage are the dominant generators.
But he does admit there is a deadline.
“There’s a timing element here, if you don’t get it right before the mid 2040s there’s a question of whether you really need it,” he says.
The other view is that Australia’s energy needs will scale in unimaginable ways as the demands of decarbonisation and AI require more electricity……………………………………………………………..
Today the global industry has attracted $US7 billion ($A11 billion) in funding, according to the FIA.
But even the $A130 billion Hostplus is merely dipping a toe in – its CFS investment is worth $US136 million.
Still, CFS CEO Bob Mumgaard says there is enough curiosity in the technology from within Australia to warrant a look here – even if nuclear power generally is still illegal. ……………………………………………………………………………………
Australia enters the chat, with HB11
Australia does have its own fusion startup in HB11. It is forging a technology path quite different to those pursued by CFS (a tokamak design) or Type One (a stellarator).
HB11 is using lasers and a proton-boron fuel, rather than the more common deuterium/tritium, deuterium/deuterium, or deuterium/helium3 combos.
“The key difference between what we’re doing and what most of the other private fusion companies are doing is we’re using [boron] which does not produce neutrons,” McKenzie says.
Boron is abundant and costs about a dollar a kilogram, and the method of firing a laser at small pellets to create an ongoing reaction doesn’t make the materials around them radioactive – more on this later.
McKenzie gently negs the tokamak and stellarator players, saying none have produced a net gain – more energy out than in – whereas laser fusion has, in December 2022 at the National Ignition Facility in California.
“The catch is it’s much harder to produce. Essentially we’ll need much bigger lasers [than we have now],” McKenzie says.
How big, you might ask?
Computer simulations suggest that, right now, they may need to be several football fields long and multiple storeys high. The National Ignition Factory’s laser is in a 10-story building about the size of three American football fields; China’s version in the southwest city Mianyang will be 50 per cent larger again, a size MxKenzie says “is about right”.
HB11 has a plan for its version of fusion to be widespread by the mid-2050s but it has a long way to go.
“When we achieve a neutronic hydrogen-boron fusion energy gain we’ll be on our way to Stockholm to pick up a Nobel prize,” McKenzie says.
Is it illegal or not?
Australia’s ban on nuclear fission technology for energy might apply to fusion – but also might not.
Experts spoken to by Renew Economy say there isn’t much interest within federal government to revisit nuclear rules and carve out a new area for fusion, somewhere between legal nuclear medicine and illegal fission.
But the UK and USare showing how fusion might be introduced, without dumping it in with fission.
Both countries say they won’t regulate fusion technology like fission, but instead treat the new reactors more like a particle accelerator.
That’s a framework that advocates like Bungey are pinning their hopes on, given almost every major hospital in Australia houses a particle accelerator to make nuclear medicines. These are controlled by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) as well as a suite of other regulators.
McKenzie says the deuterium-tritium fuel might be difficult for nations to support, given both are fuels used in nuclear weapons, but generally fusion should not be affected by national bans on fission energy.
“My legal understanding is that it will not come under Australia’s nuclear ban. But yes … what the rest of the world is doing, fusion is a relatively new field with no regulations,” he says.
“The US and the UK very recently passed legislation where the nuclear fission and fusion regulators are different and they require different standards, so you’re starting to separate the two technologies and that makes a big difference.”
But it’s Italy that might be the most appropriate model for Australia because it’s coming from a total ban on nuclear energy as well, Mumgaard says.
But Italy is also un-banning fission technology after a 40-year hiatus, producing a draft law in March to set up both fission and fusion technologies.
Pros and cons
Fusion is now such a small sector in Australia that it’s hard to find one person who isn’t connected to one of the local or global companies competing to be first, cheapest, or most realistic.
UNSW’s Patrick Burr is involved with HB11 but happy to also cut through the marketing speak. Every technology, as Burr says, has its drawbacks.
The main problem today is talent. Burr says companies are already cannibalising each other’s staff, from fusion engineers, scientists, down to people in the supply chain, and educating new talent was one reason why UNSW launched the student-led tokamak project.
But there are some practical problems as well which are high on the ‘to solve’ list of the engineers.
One of the first dot points on any ‘why fusion is better’ powerpoint slide is the tiny amount of waste it produces from a reaction.
But this is misleading. The irradiated waste of a fusion plant is the whole internal structure, albeit with a hundreds of years half life instead of a thousands of years half life.
Dealing with concrete or equipment that is toxic for hundreds of years is manageable for a society, Burr says. The challenge will be figuring out how to handle the higher volumes of radioactive material.
Another drawback is the source of fuel.
The most common fuel pairing is deuterium and tritium – the former is abundant in nature, the latter is not and has a short half life. Other fuels have their own challenges, such as HB11’s boron-hydrogen method, which right now requires giant lasers to activate.
Taking a position on nuclear energy in a country like Australia, where it doesn’t exist outside the medical sector, is a bet on the distant future.
For Burr, it’s a question on whether Australia will have won the fight with hard-to-decarbonise sectors in 50 or 100 years’ time. And whether the country wants to make a bet today on a technology that may – or may not – be that solution. https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-australian-investors-betting-big-on-fusion-the-holy-grail-of-nuclear-tech/
The Coalition Nuclear Policy is a Fake
Arena Online, Darrin Durant, Jim Falk, Jim Green, 17 Apr 2025, https://arena.org.au/the-coalition-nuclear-policy-is-a-fake/
Calls for commercial nuclear power in Australia have historically all featured the Liberal National Party (LNP) promising nuclear power but later quietly shelving such plans. With a looming federal election date, that pattern seems to have returned with the Coalition running silent on nuclear power, despite the election being only weeks away. Why?
The Coalition’s policy is a bit like a Potemkin Village anyway—the fake villages said to be erected by Grigory Potemkin to impress Catherine the Great. Like them, the nuclear proposal is at best a facade, lacking essential content but acting to distract attention from division within the Coalition on emissions reductions.
Nuclear Potemkin villages
The Coalition has an electricity plan, but it is highly unlikely to actually involve nuclear reactors. The idea of nuclear reactors (large or small) with their low life-cycle emissions (at least compared to fossil fuels) provides a facade for misdirecting public attention. Behind the facade are continuing placeholders for fossil fuels, a stalling of renewables development, and a plan to keeping coal plants running as long as possible—probably switching to gas when those coal-fired power stations become technologically and economically unviable.
The long-promised Coalition nuclear plan was eventually outlined with minimal detail in June 2024 as seven reactor-site locations across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, producing 14 gigawatt, or 38 per cent of electricity, with the first reactor supposedly coming on line by 2035–37. The claim was for an outcome ‘significantly’ cheaper than the Australian Labor Party (ALP) renewables plan. It invoked the myth of baseload power as the only route to grid reliability, and claimed it would ‘responsibly’ integrate with renewables.
On Friday 13 December 2024, when most news outlets would have already filed their stories, the Coalition released actual costings of their nuclear plan, using modelling by Frontier Economics. These costings were roundly criticized for sins of omission:
- mass under-estimations of the cost of keeping coal-plants running, the amount of planned curtailment of renewables, how much transmission nuclear would need, and the implications of not meeting net zero commitments;
- poor market-design assumptions, with the low projected cost ($263 billion less than the ALP renewables plan) being incompatible with lived experience of contemporary reactor costs. The claim of smooth renewables integration was undermined by Frontier’s own modelling suggesting solar would be curtailed to create room for nuclear;
- obfuscation of emissions, including the issue that the Coalition plan would emit more than 1.7 billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide up to 2050 compared to the ALP renewables plan;
- assumptions about a contracted not expanded industrial manufacturing base (the Frontier scenario assumes 40 per cent less electricity use);
- systematic under-estimation of full costs of nuclear reactors (estimated in the Coalition plan to be $10 billion per gigawatt while real experience shows $15–28 billion per gigawatt).
Economic analysts have confirmed that the Coalition nuclear plan rests on accounting tricks, hiding the true cost of nuclear, ignoring the cost of petrol and gas, neglecting the cost of replacing coal-fired power stations—which will otherwise be permitted to pollute for decades—and failing to cost the damage from those higher emissions.
Astroturfing nuclear support
There is a strategic vagueness in the Coalition’s nuclear plan, which replicates a key pattern in the history of nuclear power proposals in Australia: make promises, provide insufficient detail, then walk away (rinse and repeat so long as nuclear can pretend to be a climate policy). The vagueness is strategic because the lack of essential detail in the LNP nuclear plan encourages other social actors to read their ideas into the plan. It is a form of astroturfing where the proponents of an orchestrated message attempt to hide its actual sponsors but make it appear that it is supported by unsolicited grassroots individuals.
The Frontier Economics Report purports to compare the ALP’s renewables and LNP’s nuclear plans, yet in fact compares apples to oranges, based on quite different energy-demand scenarios. The ALP scenario costs more because it serves a much higher energy consumption projection. Despite it being three years since the nuclear policy was first suggested, we have been offered no idea of what the socio-political contours of a nuclear industry would look like in Australia.
There are constitutional questions. How would the LNP garner parliamentary support to overturn both federal and state bans on nuclear facilities or impose nuclear on states? There are waste disposal questions: what confidence can publics have that vastly increasing the stock of nuclear waste to be managed would succeed, given a history of failed repository siting at Kimba, Muckaty and Woomera and a legacy of Indigenous distrust of government sowed by atomic bomb testing and the extractive industries?
There are proliferation questions. When will uncertainties in Small Modular Reactor designs be resolved in a way that permits open assessment of the proliferation risks in the nuclear fuel cycle for a nuclear-juvenile nation like Australia? There are integration questions: the Coalition assumes smooth integration of nuclear and renewables but research suggests nuclear does not ‘ramp’ well, that nuclear undermines carbon emissions mitigation strategies, and that cycling limitations and the high capital costs of nuclear make nuclear power poor fits within renewables-heavy grids.
Only half-baked answers by a flood of interest groups attempt to fill the empty policy space. Thus, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) has engaged in disinformation in their support of nuclear power, attacking renewables seemingly because adopting nuclear would diminish investor confidence in renewables. Whereas the MCA engages in corporate and parliamentary lobbying, media networks such as The Australian and Sky News have populated the mainstream media with repackaged climate denial and delay talk: renewables are economic black holes, solar and wind are unreliable, and decarbonization transitions need to be managed (glacially).
Popup nuclear groups, including Nuclear for Climate and WePlanet (an offshoot of the UK fossil-fuel funded RePlanet) litter the online social media spaces with new denialism. Old denialism denied anthropogenic warming. New denialism, a ‘regime of obstruction’, throws sand in the gears of the decarbonization transition to keep fossil capital in the driving seat. The effects and urgency of climate mitigation are sidelined, disarming the objection that nuclear is too slow and piecemeal. Renewables-based climate solutions are discredited. These popup public groups reinvent the rationalist critique of environmentalism, deriding anti-nuclear critics as emotional. The scientism of the popup nuclear groups is palpable.
The astroturfing effect—creating a perception of broad public support where little exists—is in part explained by an effect discussed by the experimental psychologist F.C. Bartlett in his Remembering (1932). His argument was that the complexity of a response is a function of the complexity of the responding agents, not the stimulant. Audiences fill a simple message with missing meaning. With the LNP plan, plural, polarized publics have loaded up the vague nuclear proposal (closer to a meme than a policy) with meanings. The LNP simply prodded audiences with rhetoric about ‘renewables will not cut it’ and ‘we need reliable power’, then let the existing regime of obstruction interest-groups jump in. In this way, public support for nuclear is manufactured. It’s astroturfing, via experimental psychology and the politics of division.
The Coalition nuclear plan: A Claytons policy
The Australian Coalition government has repeatedly advanced nuclear as the solution to a problem, falling in love with nuclear publicly, and then ghosting it after a brief flirtation.
The John Gorton-led Coalition Government sought to build a reactor at Jervis Bay in 1969, but the idea floundered by 1971. The John Howard-led Coalition government introduced legislation in 1998 to ban nuclear facilities in Australia, ostensibly to secure support for a new research reactor at Lucas Heights but also reflecting bipartisan agreement that commercial nuclear power lacked political legitimacy in Australia.
Yet in 2006 the Howard government commissioned a task force to spruik the potential for commercial nuclear power. The Report, authored by Ziggy Switkowski and released in 2007, suggested Australia could start in 2020 to build twenty-five reactors that by 2050 would supply one-third of Australia’s electricity. However, by 2007 the Coalition again tried to run dead on nuclear power. Having announced reactor siting would be decided according to commercial decisions, community backlash saw the Coalition first backtrack by promising binding local plebiscites for any proposed location, then shelve any nuclear legislation until after the election. Howard lost his seat, and the Coalition did not raise nuclear again.
Until they did. The South Australian (SA) Liberals pushed for a nuclear power royal commission and the SA Labor Party obliged in 2016. In 2017 the New South Wales Liberals called for a debate on nuclear power. In 2019, the federal Liberals established a parliamentary commission to canvas what would be needed to introduce commercial nuclear power into Australia. In May 2022, Peter Dutton, then in government and (supposed) fan of nuclear power, stated that nuclear was ‘not on the table’, citing concerns to reduce costs rather than raise them. Yet in October 2022 the Liberals (now from opposition) introduced a bill to remove nuclear prohibitions.
What changed? One suggestion is to be found in a podcast that emerged in 2023, where the Coalition’s Minister Matt Canavan (who introduced the bill) admitted his colleagues were ‘not serious’ about nuclear power and only engaging with it ‘because it fixes a political issue for us’.
The Australian LNP has a plan for commercial nuclear power reactors in Australia that is a Claytons energy policy. Some may recall that Claytons was a non-alcoholic beverage, marketed in the 1970s and 1980s, and promoted as ‘the drink you have when you’re not having a drink’. To refer to ‘a Claytons’ means to refer to a shadow of the real thing, a substitute, an imitation. Nuclear power in Australia is the energy policy you have when you do not have a viable energy policy.
Forget nuclear, Australia is on fast lane to 100pc renewables
by Andrew Blakers | Apr 11, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/forget-nuclear-australia-is-on-fast-lane-to-100pc-renewables-solar/
Gas is the talk of the town, while nuclear is not, but a massive increase in solar power generation capacity has already put Australia on the fast track to a 100% renewable energy future. Solar cell engineer
Andrew Blakers explains.
An academic living in cold Canberra retired his gas heaters a few years ago and installed electric heat pumps for space and water heating. His gas bill went to zero. He also bought an electric vehicle, so his petrol bill went to zero.
He then installed rooftop solar panels that export enough solar electricity to the grid to pay for electricity imports at night, so his electricity bill also went to zero. That Canberra academic will get his money back from these energy investments in about eight years.
I am that academic.
Solar energy is causing the fastest energy change in history. Along with support from wind energy, it offers unlimited, cheap, clean and reliable energy forever.
With energy storage effectively a problem solved, the required raw materials impossible to exhaust — despite some misconceptions in the community — and an Australian transition gathering pace,
“solar and wind are becoming a superhighway to a future of 100 percent renewable energy.“
While the technological arguments for solar and wind power are compelling, it’s clear renewables have to overcome obstacles.
One is the division over the impact of the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure. It has divided affected communities across the country and needs to be addressed. Generous compensation and effective education about large regional economic opportunities are good ways forward.
There is also the political debate about what form Australia’s energy transition should take.
Solar surge
Yet, beyond those issues, solar offers unlimited energy for billions of years and provides the cheapest energy in history with zero greenhouse gases, zero smog and zero water consumption.
That explains why solar energy generation is growing tenfold each decade and, with support from wind, dominates global power station construction markets, while global nuclear electricity generation has been static for 30 years and is largely irrelevant.
In 2024, twice as much new solar generation capacity — about 560 gigawatts — was added compared with all other systems put together. Wind, hydro, coal, gas and nuclear added up to about 280 gigawatts.
There will be more global solar generation capacity in 2030 than everything else combined, assuming current growth rates continue. Solar generation will pass wind and nuclear generation this year and should catch coal generation around 2031.
About 37 percent of Australia’s electricity already comes from solar and wind, with an additional 6 percent from hydroelectric power stations that were built decades ago.
“More solar energy is generated per person in Australia than in any other country.”
Solar is by far the best method of removing fossil fuels, which cause three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions, from the economy.
In Australia, 99 percent of new generation capacity installed since 2015 has been solar and wind, and it is all private money. The energy market is saying very clearly that solar and wind have won the energy race and energy policies are consistent with reaching the government target of 82 percent renewable electricity by 2030.
Solar on the roof coupled with energy storage in a hot water tank, an EV battery and a home battery allows a family to ride through interruptions to gas, petrol and electricity supply and that energy resilience can apply at domestic, city, state and national levels.
Managing the balance
Balancing high levels of solar and wind energy to avoid supply interruptions is straightforward at low cost using off-the-shelf technology available from vast production lines. New transmission brings new solar and wind power into the cities and also smooths out the vagaries of local weather by transmitting solar and wind electricity to where it is needed.
For example, if it is raining in Victoria and sunny in New South Wales, then electricity can be transmitted south. Storage comprises batteries for short-term storage of a few hours and pumped hydro energy storage for hours to days.
“Together, batteries and pumped hydro solve the energy storage issues.“
Pumped hydro energy storage provides about 95 percent of global energy storage. It typically comprises two reservoirs located a few kilometres apart and with an altitude difference of between 500 and 1,000 metres.
On sunny or windy days, renewable sources like solar or wind power are used to pump water into the uphill reservoir, and during the night, the water flows back downhill through the turbine to recover the stored energy.
The same water can go up and down between the reservoirs for 100 years. Global potential pumped hydro energy storage is equivalent to two trillion electric vehicle batteries.
Australia has about 300 times more pumped hydro energy storage potential than needed to support 100 percent renewable electricity. It already has three pumped hydro systems, with two more under construction.
Globally, the world has more than 820,000 potential pumped hydro sites, which is about 200 times more than we need to support a 100 percent renewable energy system.
When eventually complete, Snowy 2.0 will provide 85 percent of energy storage in the national energy market at a cost 10 times lower than equivalent batteries and with a lifetime that is five times longer.
Myths and misconceptions
There are those — often vested interests — who throw up arguments against solar energy, regardless of what the facts say about its merits.
Here are a few:
- It takes up valuable farmland. Most of the area in solar and wind farms remains in use for agriculture. The area withdrawn from agriculture to generate all our energy from solar and wind is very small, equating to about the size of a large living room per person.
- The rural landscape can’t fit in any more solar and wind farms. Heat maps developed by researchers at the Australian National University show the vast number of good locations for solar and wind farms.
- Renewable infrastructure is a blight on the landscape. Hosts of solar and wind farms (and their neighbours) are generously compensated, while hosts of transmission lines are paid more than $200,000 per km. All the solar farms, wind farms, transmission and pumped hydro are in regional areas, which means that vast amounts of money and employment are flowing into regional areas. Solar farms are usually invisible from other properties. Open-cut roads, buildings, open-cut coal mines and gas fields are also visible in the landscape. People in cities have a far more cluttered view from their windows than rural people.
- We will run out of critical minerals. No critical minerals are required, only substitutable minerals. Solar panels require silicon for the solar cells, glass, plastic and conductors, which are made from extremely abundant materials.
- We will drown in solar panel waste. The amount of solar panel waste generated when all energy (not just electricity) comes from solar amounts to about 16 kg per person per year (mostly glass). Panel waste is a small and solvable problem.
Victorian Liberal leader distances state party from Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal: ‘Our focus is gas’
Brad Battin says he had a conversation with the federal opposition leader about the ‘language’ he would use about plans to build a nuclear reactor in eastern Victoria
Benita Kolovos Victorian state correspondent, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/15/victorian-liberal-leader-brad-battin-distances-state-party-from-peter-dutton-nuclear-proposal
The Victorian opposition leader says he discussed the language he would use to distance the state party from the federal Coalition’s campaign to build a nuclear reactor in the Latrobe Valley, telling Peter Dutton “it’s your campaign”.
The Loy Yang coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley east of Melbourne is one of seven proposed sites for the federal Coalition’s proposal to build nuclear reactors, the centrepiece energy policy the federal Liberal leader will be taking to the 3 May poll.
But in his first interview with Guardian Australia since becoming the state Liberal leader in December, Brad Battin was clear to separate his team from the proposal, saying: “Our focus is gas, let the feds get on with what they’ve got to get on with.”
He confirmed he had not spoken to anyone in the federal Coalition about its two-and-a-half-year consultation plan for each proposed nuclear site, with the issue “barely raised” at all on the campaign trail.
However, Battin said a conversation had taken place with Dutton and his office about how he would handle questions on the policy.
“I’ve had the conversation with Dutton and his office around what my language is going to be, which is basically saying, ‘We’re happy to have a conversation at the right time. But for us, it’s your campaign at the moment. Our priority, our focus, is on gas,’” he said.
Battin said the federal Coalition would need state parliament to overturn Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983, which bans the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in the state. Asked if he would be happy with that law being overturned, he said: “I’ll let you know on 4 May.”
Without the support of state parliament, Battin said a Dutton government would face a “difficult process” under section 109 of the constitution, which allows federal law to override state law in the case of conflict.
At his campaign launch on Sunday, Dutton vowed that Australia would become a “nuclear-powered nation” under the Coalition if elected. He said nuclear energy would reduce the need for “sprawling solar and windfarms or laying down 28,000km of transmission lines”.
Battin, however, said most Victorians wanted cheaper energy but “don’t know what the answer to that is yet”.
He said that as existing gas fields in Victoria’s Gippsland and Otway basins continue to deplete, the state should prioritise expanding onshore gas exploration instead.
The comments mark a shift in tone for Battin, who has spent months sticking to a carefully worded position that the Victorian Coalition was open to an “adult conversation” about the policy. He has also repeatedly refused to provide a personal view on nuclear energy.
Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs
by Charlie Joyce, https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/duttons-nuclear-push-will-cost-renewable-jobs/
As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized.
The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have brought criticism from federal and state governments, the CSIRO, the Climate Council, the Electrical Trade Union (ETU), the Climate Change Authority, the Australia Institute, and independent energy experts.
The CSIRO, among others, has refuted the Coalition’s claim that nuclear will be cheaper than renewables; instead, they have shown the energy produced by Australian reactors would cost approximately eight times more than the same amount of energy produced by renewables. If this cost is passed on to consumers, the average household would pay $590 per year more on their power bill. Unsurprisingly, Australia Institute polling has found that fewer than one in twenty Australians (4%) are prepared to pay this nuclear premium.
The cost alone should be enough to bury this nuclear proposal. But it is also important to recognise how the Coalition’s plan will impact – and fail – workers.
False promises
The Coalition has proposed that large nuclear reactors would be built on the sites of five operational or recently decommissioned coal fired power stations: Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, and Loy Yang in Victoria. In doing so, the Coalition has promised that nuclear energy would be a source of stable and plentiful work for the communities where coal-fired power plants are phasing down.
This is a false promise. Six coal fired power stations have already closed in the past decade, with 90% of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations set to close in the next decade. These communities are already undergoing structural adjustment, and they need new sources of employment now. But this is not what the Coalition’s plan delivers. The Coalition outlines that the first two nuclear reactors would not come online until the mid-2030s – more than a decade from now – while the remainder would be completed by 2050.
And energy and technology experts agree that even this timeline is impossible. On average, a nuclear reactor takes 9.4 years just to build in countries with established and capable nuclear industries. Former Australian Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has estimated that it would take until the mid-2040s at the earliest for Australia to build an operational nuclear reactor. Moreover, analysis from the Institute for Energy, Economic & Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has found that, in economies comparable to Australia’s, every single nuclear reactor project experienced multi-year delays and cost blowouts of up to three and a half times over budget. It is hard to see how Australia, which lacks the experienced workforce, training and research base, or regulatory framework, would buck this trend.
Lost jobs
While the Coalition’s nuclear plan would not bring jobs to the communities that need them, it might have the real effect of depressing investment in renewables.
Renewable energy already generates approximately 40% of Australia’s energy and is by far the cheapest form of electricity. Renewable energy industries already account for the employment of tens of thousands of workers, and Jobs and Skills Australia estimates that approximately 240,000 new workers will be required in industries associated with clean energy by 2030.
But this requires ongoing and expanding investment in renewables, which the Coalition’s nuclear policy is likely to derail. The Clean Energy Council has estimated that by capping renewable energy to 54% of total use (as the Coalition’s modelling has assumed), 29GW of renewable energy generation projects would not be built – squandering an expected 37,700 full-time-equivalent construction jobs and 5,000 ongoing jobs in operations and maintenance. By limiting renewables investment, prolonging fossil fuel usage, and diverting investment towards nuclear energy, the full employment opportunities of the renewable energy transition are lost.
Scarce and dangerous work
If the Coalition’s nuclear plan does come to fruition it will hardly create any ongoing jobs for the communities that have undergone structural readjustment. According to analysis from the Nuclear Energy Agency, while the peak period of construction of the average 1GW nuclear power plant can demand up to 3,500 workers, ongoing operations and maintenance will only require about 400 workers – with only a quarter of these being onsite blue-collar jobs that might provide work for the people who will have lost jobs with the closure of coal-fired power stations. Most jobs will be in administration, regulatory compliance, energy, marketing, sales, science and emergency personnel – and many of them are likely to be located away from the nuclear facility itself.
Disturbingly, any jobs on-site may put the health of workers at risk. Recent analysis of multiple studies of the health impacts of nuclear power plant employment across multiple countries found that workers have a significantly higher risk of mesothelioma and circulatory disease due to exposure to radiation. Nearby residents also exhibit a significantly higher risks of cancer, with children under the age of five at particular risk. And this does not even factor in the risk of sudden plant failure and reactor meltdown on workers and communities – a risk sharpened by the Coalition’s plan for these reactors to be built on geological fault lines with heightened earthquake risk.
Australian workers have much to gain from the renewable energy transition, including cheaper power, new clean technology industries, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The Coalition’s nuclear plan only brings false promises, lost jobs, and – if the plan comes to fruition – few jobs and potentially dangerous work.
Coalition’s nuclear power pitch falling flat with some voters, Vote Compass data suggests
ABC By Vote Compass reporter Isabella Higgins and Claudia Williams, Topic:Australian Federal Elections, Sat 12 Apr 25 [excellent tables]
The Coalition’s pitch for nuclear power in Australia appears to be struggling for support among some key voters, as the nation prepares to vote on its energy future.
New data from the ABC’s Vote Compass survey shows respondents are divided on nuclear energy, while support for climate change action appears to have softened.
About 47 per cent of ABC Vote Compass respondents said they strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with building nuclear power plants, while 38 per cent were somewhat or strongly supportive.
Perth local Gabriel Maddock said she’s made up her mind on nuclear energy, and it is a decision she is making with her young children in mind.
“I don’t think it will be better for the environment, it’s going to be hugely expensive, and I think there’s serious safety risks,” the 35-year-old told the ABC.
ABC Vote Compass found views towards nuclear were split along party lines, while men were more supportive, and those over 65 were the age group most likely to be unsupportive.
According to Vote Compass data, 29 per cent of males strongly disagree with the plan while 41.9 per cent of females disagree.
However, the data shows strong support from those who intend to vote for the Coalition with 44 per cent saying they agree Australia should build nuclear power plants.
This contrasts with those who plan to vote for independents, Labor and the Greens — with just 7, 5, and 4 per cent respectively in strong agreement.
This data comes from a sample of more than 270,000 and has been demographically weighted…………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Coalition is promising by 2050 Australia will get 38 per cent of its power from nuclear energy, 54 per cent from renewables, and 8 per cent from storage and gas.
Some experts have questioned the projected cost and timelines of the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
Meanwhile, Labor plans to have a grid almost totally powered by renewable energy, with the target of reaching 82 per cent of renewable energy by 2030 and fully renewable by 2050.
Ms Maddock is concerned that a switch to nuclear power would lead to more carbon emissions in the shorter term.
“From a climate perspective, it seems like it’s solving one environmental issue with another, because nuclear waste is a very difficult thing to deal with,” she said.
“Why would we do that when we could continue developing our renewable power, something Australia is really in a position to be a leader in.”……………………………………………………………………………
Vote Compass is an educational tool designed to promote electoral literacy and civic engagement. While not a conventional public opinion poll, Vote Compass responses can be analysed using statistical methods similar to those used in polling to try to adjust for sampling bias.
Responses have been weighted by gender, age, education, language, religion, place of residence and past vote to account for the selection effects of the sample, enabling us to make statistical inferences about the Australian population.
Rightwing lobby group Advance says it makes ‘no apology’ for support given to anti-Greens groups
Advance has also focused on the anti-renewables movement, appearing at “energy forums” across the country and events held by groups set up to oppose the roll-out of offshore wind and solar energy.
Ariel Bogle, 13 Apr 25 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/13/rightwing-lobby-group-advance-says-it-makes-no-apology-for-support-given-to-anti-greens-groups?CMP=share_btn_url
Spokesperson acknowledges supply of flyers, T-shirts and corflutes to ‘dozens of community groups’ seeking to defeat party’s candidates.
The rightwing advocacy group Advance has acknowledged it is paying for election materials attacking the Greens to be used by third-party groups during the election campaign.
“Advance is working with hundreds of volunteers from dozens of community groups to defeat Greens candidates and we make no apology,” a spokesperson said.
The spokesperson said Advance did not fund groups directly but “we absolutely pay for anti-Greens campaign material to be at the disposal of volunteers”.
“This includes 2m flyers and thousands of T-shirts and corflutes.
“Again, we make no apologies.”
The group’s plan to focus its election campaign on reducing the Greens vote has been no secret. Advance’s executive director, Matthew Sheahan, claimed in a February email to supporters it had already raised $7.6m to “smash the Greens” and about $2m to target Labor. The group has spent more than $200,000 in the past week to promote posts from Facebook pages with names such as “Greens Truth”.
But it has not previously talked publicly about the extent of its support for other groups hostile to the Greens, including those that take exception to the party’s position on the Israel-Gaza war or on renewable energy.
The type of assistance Advance has on offer was revealed by two Jewish advocacy groups at a forum hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA).
Simonne Whine of J-United, which campaigned against the Greens in the recent Prahran byelection in Victoria, said her group had reached out to Advance to get its campaign started.
“They were fantastic, efficient, strategic, well resourced,” she said. “They supplied the flyers, the T-shirts and the corflutes, and shipped everything to Melbourne, helping us hit the ground running.” Advance even paid for a picnic to thank volunteers, Whine said.
During last year’s Queensland state election, the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC) also focused on the Greens vote in Brisbane seats such as Maiwar and Moggill. One of the group’s directors, Roz Mendelle, told the AJA forum QJC had spoken with Advance after seeing its work during the campaign against the Indigenous voice to parliament.
“When time came … to do something against the Greens here in Brisbane, I knew who to turn to,” Mendelle said, claiming that Advance kept “a healthy distance” while the campaign was under way. According to an event invitation seen by Guardian Australia, QJC held a volunteer event with Advance in February.
Mendelle is a co-director of a new group, Minority Impact Coalition (MIC), which has started a billboard campaign against Labor and the Greens in multiple states. A spokesperson for both groups said neither QJC nor MIC had received materials or funding from Advance.
“We had agreed to share volunteers for the federal election,” she said. “However, our volunteers do not want to work with Advance at the federal election so we have made the decision to do our own groundforce campaign.”
During the AJA briefing, Mendelle showed an image of a billboard paid for by QJC that read: “The Greens: They’ve changed for the worse.”
“This is also inspired by the Advance messaging,” she said. “But from there, we gained our footing, and we decided to just speak our truth.” MIC is using the same mobile billboard provider as Advance in Queensland, NSW and Victoria – STT Advertising.
In return, Advance has also used content from groups such as J-United on social media, sharing pictures of its “local grassroots community members” on its Greens Truth Facebook page.
The likely electoral impact of the anti-Greens strategy remains somewhat elusive. The Greens hold only four seats in the lower house, of which the three they won in Brisbane at the last election appear vulnerable. They have six senators up for re-election. By contrast, six new teal independent MPs were elected in 2022 – if they hold those seats or even increase their numbers, they might be expected to have a greater say in the event of a hung parliament.
“They’ve clearly worked out how to get conservative people fired up enough to throw money at them, and the way to do that is by attacking the Greens,” said Peter Lewis, the executive director of Essential, which is conducting qualitative research for the ALP. “But it’s not going to do anything to help the Liberals win back teal seats.”
The Advance spokesperson said: “Our campaign against the Greens won’t defeat teals because it was never meant to. We have been crystal clear for the past 18 months that our focus is on the Greens this election.”
Sheahan told an Australian Jewish Association forum in 2024: “Our goal is to just expose the Greens policies so that people don’t vote for them … A partial benefit will be that we think that will also reduce the teal vote.” His logic for that claim was unclear.
Anti-renewables
Advance has also focused on the anti-renewables movement, appearing at “energy forums” across the country and events held by groups set up to oppose the roll-out of offshore wind and solar energy.
As Guardian Australia has previously documented, the Facebook account for Advance spokesperson Sandra Bourke is active in dozens of local Facebook groups and pages opposing renewable projects in places such as Lake Borumba and Mount Fox in Queensland, regularly sharing Advance content.
Bourke is a regular speaker at these rallies and events – unusually for the outfit, which generally avoids a public-facing presence.
Grant Piper is the former chair of the National Rational Energy Network (NRen), which brought together community groups opposed to renewable energy projects and hosted events including the Reckless Renewables rally in Canberra last year.
That’s where Piper first met Advance. “We didn’t tie any formal knots, but we could tell we were pushing after the same thing when it comes to renewables,” Piper said.
NRen, which has rebranded as Let’s Rethink Renewables, has had discussions with Advance “all the way through”, he said, although it has remained independent. Bourke, one of NRen’s original members, is now Advance’s spokesperson and the face of its campaign against the Greens.
According to Piper – who appeared in Advance’s anti-renewables Dollars & Destruction video series – the organisation is a natural ally for groups that feel they are mostly excluded from the conversation taking place in parliament and the media.
“Advance is helping get publicity for the grassroots people who have been shut out of everything,” he said.
Others who have teamed up for the Greens Truth campaign include groups that emerged from the anti-lockdown movement, the Freedom party and Reignite Democracy Australia – which makes clear to prospective volunteers that their details will be shared with Advance.
Another NRen member and former One Nation candidate, Katy McCallum, was the MC at a “Goodbye Greens Rally” in Brisbane in late March, where QJC also appeared. Along with other event backers such as the Libertarian candidate Jim Willmott, she thanked Bourke and Advance for their help at the event.
“If our other good mate Sandra Bourke … from Advance hadn’t have jumped on, this would not be happening today,” she said.
Dump nuclear, restore momentum – new poll shows opportunity for Coalition
Liberals Against Nuclear. 14 Apr 25
New polling shows the Liberal Party would increase its primary vote by 2.8 percentage points if it abandoned its nuclear energy policy, according to research commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear.
Andrew Gregson, spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear, said the polling demonstrates that the same political flexibility recently shown by Peter Dutton on the work-from-home policy should be applied to the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan.
“Peter Dutton has shown he can make hard-headed decisions when they’re needed to win government. Our polling shows dumping nuclear would deliver an immediate 2.8% boost to the Liberal primary vote in key seats – potentially the difference between winning and losing this election,” Mr Gregson said.
The uComms survey of 5,177 voters across 12 marginal electorates, including Liberal-held seats and those targeted for recovery from Labor and independents, found that 50.6% of undecided voters are less likely to vote for the Coalition because of its nuclear policy.
“Just as Mr Dutton recognised that the work-from-home policy was hurting his standing with women voters, our polling shows that dropping nuclear would increase the Liberal vote among women by four percentage points,” Mr Gregson said.
“The Coalition’s backdown on forcing public servants back to the office full-time shows Mr Dutton can listen to voters and change direction when necessary. We’re simply asking for that same political flexibility to be applied to a fiscally irresponsible nuclear policy that’s proving even more unpopular.”
Mr Gregson noted that 48% of respondents indicated they don’t support nuclear power at all, with concerns about reducing investment in renewable energy (17.3%), nuclear waste management (14.6%), and high build costs (11.6%) topping the list of voter concerns.
“Our message to Liberal candidates is simple – even if you personally support nuclear energy, this polling shows dropping the policy gives you the best chance of winning your race. We’re running out of time, but it’s not too late to make this change and give the Coalition its best shot at forming government.”
Community groups furious Coalition nuclear plan would go ahead even if locals oppose it
Critics of policy say residents should be ‘very angry’ they will not be able to veto generators in their towns despite promise to consult them.
Tory Shepherd, 13 Apr 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/13/community-groups-furious-coalition-nuclear-plan-would-go-ahead-even-if-locals-oppose-it
There is a “growing backlash” to the Coalition’s nuclear plan, with community groups furious at the lack of consultation and angered that the policy would not give local communities the power of veto and that nuclear plants would be built regardless of local opposition.
Opponents say the pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Australia has been hosting information sessions but that it makes it overly difficult for people to attend and ask questions, and is not able to answer those questions that are posed.
Wendy Farmer, who has formed an alliance of the seven regions affected by the Coalition’s pledge to build nuclear reactors on the site of coal-fired power stations, says Australians should be “very angry” that they will not be able to veto any planned nuclear generators in their towns despite the Coalition’s promise to carry out a two-and-a-half-year consultation.
She refuses to call the policy a “plan” because of that lack of consultation. “They haven’t even looked at these sites,” she said.
Dave Sweeney, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner, says it is “more con than consultation”. And he says in his many years in nuclear-free campaigns he has never seen so many sectors – including unions, state leaders, energy producers, businesses and protest groups – aligned against nuclear.
The Coalition has pinpointed Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales, Loy Yang in Victoria, and small modular reactors (SMRs) in Port Augusta in South Australia and Muja, near Collie in Western Australia.
It says the $331bn nuclear plan will make electricity cheaper, while critics have called its costings a “fantasy”.
The Liberal party did not respond to questions about the lack of consultation and lack of veto power.
The alliance said there “has been no consultation or free prior and informed consent from traditional custodians”.
“You never asked locals if they want nuclear reactors in their back yards, instead you threaten compulsory acquisition and federal overrides with no right to veto,” it said in a petition to the Coalition.
It said the plan was a “distraction” designed to “create false debate” when communities are already transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Jayla Parkin, a Collie resident and community organiser for Climate Justice Union, said pro-nuclear information sessions had not provided any answers and had tried to stop First Nations people from entering.
Nuclear for Australia has held two information sessions with “expert speakers” in the town.
One elder was “devastated” after initially being refused entrance to a meeting last year, Parkin said. “She wanted to get the information,” Parkin said. “Not everyone is simply for nuclear or against. We are for being informed on what’s going to happen.”
At a January meeting, elders were told they couldn’t go in because of something wrong with their registrations, which Parkin then sorted out. Once inside, she said questions had to be submitted via an app.
Not a single question could be answered … like ‘Where is the water coming from?’, ‘How will this benefit Collie?’, and ‘Where are you going to store the radioactive waste?’” she said.
Since then, the community had heard nothing, she said.
Nuclear for Australia, founded by Will Shackel and boasting the entrepreneur Dick Smith as a patron, describes itself as a grassroots organisation with no political affiliation.
Information sessions have featured Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who says being called “Barbenheimer” is one of her favourite compliments.
Shackel told SBS that Nuclear for Australia Google people when they try to register for the sessions.
“If we believe that someone is a known protester … someone who could cause a physical threat to people in there, we will not allow them in,” he said.
Farmer, also the president of Voices of the Valley, said Nuclear for Australia was “silencing people” by only allowing questions through an app and filtering them.
Nuclear for Australia has also taken out ads in local newspapers claiming 77% of coal jobs are transferable to nuclear plants and that nuclear workers are paid 50% more than other power generation-related jobs.
The fine print shows those claims come from a US nuclear industry lobby organisation and refer to the situation in the US.
Farmer said that, “adding insult to injury”, the advertisements misspell Latrobe Valley as La Trobe Valley and, in one case, an ad aimed at Latrobe was put in an SA newspaper.
“Regional communities are desperate for jobs now,” Farmer said. “Nuclear is not the answer.”
Protesters heckled the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, for not meeting with the community when he visited Collie in October last year.
“Collie doesn’t like it when people like that come to our town and hide,” Parkin said. “People have questions … at least openly answer them.”
In Perth last week Dutton was asked about criticism from Collie residents that he hadn’t heard their concerns about nuclear power and whether he would commit to visiting the town during the election campaign.
“I’ve been to Collie before,” he said. “There are seven locations around the country, and I won’t be able to get to all of them.”
Those communities knew the Coalition was offering them “the ability to transform”, he said.
Greg Bannon is from the Flinders Local Action Group, which was formed to oppose plans to build a nuclear waste dump in SA.
He said the community had not heard much apart from a February information session held by Nuclear for Australia. He said there were concerns about the safety of any power plant and the impact on the local environment. “Port Augusta … is probably the most stupid place to put a nuclear power station in the world,” he said, pointing to the unique nature of Spencer Gulf and its flat “dodge” tides.
“Any leakage … the water would end up in the top end of the gulf, with only one place to go, through Port Lincoln, the fish nurseries, the mangroves … only 50km further south is Point Lowly near Whyalla, where the annual migration of the southern giant cuttlefish occurs, which is a unique event in the world,” he said.
The other point, Bannon said, was that the region had already transitioned away from baseload power to renewables.
Guardian Australia has approached the Coalition and Nuclear for Australia for a response.
Tom Venning was preselected to replace retiring MP Rowan Ramsey in Grey, the federal electorate that Port Augusta sits within. He said he supported the policy as part of a “credible path to net zero” and that if the Coalition formed government there would be a two-and-a-half-year community consultation and an independent feasibility study.
“I’m committed to keeping my community fully informed and involved,” he said, adding that he would take any concerns seriously and would work with local leaders and the energy minister to address them.
Sweeney said the Coalition already appeared to be backing away from its commitment to nuclear and appeared reluctant to bring it up.
On Friday Dutton said people would flock to nuclear if they subsidised it but that they could “subsidise all sorts of energies”.
“I don’t carry a candle for nuclear or any other technology,” he said.
Farmer said: “There is a growing backlash.
“We are keeping it as a hot topic – because the Coalition doesn’t want to talk about nuclear, we will.”
Going nuclear will decimate jobs in regions first, stop billions in new investment.
Cancelling new transmission projects will decimate opportunities for electrical workers and apprentices in exactly the regional areas where opportunities are needed, says ETU national secretary Michael Wright
Rachel Williamson, Apr 10, 2025 https://reneweconomy.com.au/going-nuclear-will-decimate-jobs-in-regions-first-stop-billions-in-new-investment/
Regional areas will suffer the most from job and investment losses stemming from the Coalition’s energy promises, according to analyses from alarmed energy sector stakeholders.
The Coalition’s push for nuclear, a policy that was announced with much fanfare in December but has largely disappeared from the election hustings, will result in the loss of $58 billion in direct investment in renewable and storage, and cause the loss of 42,000 full time jobs, the Clean Energy Council says.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s Budget reply promised to abolish the $19 billion Rewiring the Nation fund will also cause the immediate loss of jobs, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) says.
The ETU analysis suggests 2000 electrical worker jobs will disappear this year if work stops on major network projects, rising to 7000 job losses in 2029 when building work on new transmission is expected to peak.
The costs are the direct impact from the Coalition’s promise to build seven nuclear reactors across Australia.
In December, it outlined a vision of small modular reactors becoming operational by a hugely ambitious timeline 2035 – notwithstanding the fact that these do not exist as commercial technology yet – and predicted the first large reactor operational by 2037.
But that vision requires renewable generation taking up no more than54 per cent of the total energy supply in 2050 – compared to Labor’s target of 82 per cent by 2030 – and cutting funding for new transmission by 79 per cent to allow room both in the grid and budget, according to modelling by think tank Frontier Economics.
At what cost?
The overall cost of abruptly changing the country’s energy course will be high, according to numbers crunched in a Clean Energy Council analysis.
Their data shows the size of the loss in the years before 2030 alone, and the size and longevity of the damage to investment decision making.
“The energy sector doesn’t plan based on three-to-four-year election cycles. These are 30–40-year investment decisions and investors need to see continued confidence in the sector through stable, long-term policy settings to keep investing in Australia,” says CEC CEO Kane Thornton.
“We need the right policy settings in place and both government and industry working together to accelerate the delivery of cheap, reliable and modern clean energy that works for Australia.”
Renewable generation is set to reach 54 per cent of the National Energy Market (NEM) by 2028 from projects that are being built or have financial backing today.
Preventing renewable energy generation from growing past that level would mean cancelling almost 29 gigawatts (GW) of large scale solar and wind currently proposed or in planning and the $58 billion of capital investment they will need.
Some 37,7000 construction jobs per annum won’t happen, nor will 5000 jobs annually in operations and maintenance, just between 2026 and 2030.
Regional areas will miss out on $68 billion of economic activity and landholders will miss out on $2.7-3.4 billion in payments over a 25-year project life cycle.
Communities will lose a further $696 million in direct contributions from renewable energy projects.
And to top it off, household bills will be $449 higher, according to the Clean Energy Council NEM bill analysis in March of the impact of going nuclear.
Regions will hurt the most
While the nuclear proposal is seen by many analysts as a smokescreen for keeping decrepit coal plants running longer, the immediate ramifications will hit hardest and immediately in the regions.
Renewable energy projects are delivering jobs and financial investment in country areas long neglected by national and state budgets, says Renew Economy‘s David Leitch.
“This is the greatest economic opportunity the regions will ever face in Australia, at least in the last 100 years, and probably in the next 100 years,” he said during a Smart Energy Conference talk on Wednesday.
Cancelling new transmission projects will decimate opportunities for electrical workers and apprentices in exactly the regional areas where opportunities are needed, says ETU national secretary Michael Wright.
“Peter Dutton is planning a jobs bloodbath for the electrical industry,” he said in a statement.
“Cancelling new transmission construction] deprives nearly 12,000 electrical workers, their communities and their families of a living across the country.”
Its analysis suggests that staying the course under the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Step Change plan would lead to almost 43,000 new jobs by 2050. Dutton’s energy plan would lead to an aggregate of almost 25,000 job cuts.
Other jobs that will disappear include construction workers and truck drivers, due to halting new renewable projects in order to meet the 54 per cent cap, says Thornton.
Capping renewables at 54 per cent would not only see Australia miss out on billions of dollars of capital investment and economic growth, but thousands of jobs… and billions of dollars in community benefits would be left on the table,” he said in a statement.
“We need all sides of politics to embrace this private-sector investment into regional Australia and the thousands of well-paid jobs this industry generates every year.
“These are real dollars for farmers, real dollars for country towns and real blue-collar jobs that pay Australians’ bills.”
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 