“Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never ever jam today!” So says the White Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.” It’s entered the vernacular to describe a never-fulfilled promise. It turns out it’s also the federal Coalition’s energy policy.
Last Wednesday, on a single sheet of parchment, the Australian electorate was presented with a faint outline of the Coalition’s nuclear plans. There was precious little detail. A couple of reactors in this state, a couple in this one, and so on, all at sites hosting current or former coal fired power stations.
There were no costings. Just a lot of promises to stop renewables, and bulldoze any opposition from the states, the site owners and local communities, and to have the first nuclear operating by 2035, a timeline no one believes.
Over the weekend, there was nothing but confusion. Consider this exchange from Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien and the ABC’s David Speers.
O’Brien: “Peter Dutton has made it clear. He’s more than happy for this election to be a referendum on cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity.”
Speers: “And he said nuclear energy.”
O’Brien: “Nuclear is part of a balanced energy mix.”
Speers: “If you don’t win, that’s it?”
O’Brien: “Very happy to be public about that.”
Speers: “So if you don’t win, that’s it?”
O’Brien: “When it comes to, if we don’t win, firstly, we plan to win. And we are doing nuclear energy as part of that.”
Speers: “If you don’t win, you drop it?”
O’Brien: “It’s the right thing by this nation. There’s people like you who will run commentary on it.”
Speers: ‘I am asking if you accept the referendum.”
O’Brien: “I didn’t say it’s a referendum.”
Speers: “Peter Dutton said he’s very happy for this to be a referendum on energy and nuclear power.”
O’Brien: “You’re right. Because we want cheaper, cleaner and consisent”
Over the weekend the Smart Energy Council released a quick analysis that put the cost of the Coalition energy plan between $118 billion and $600 billion, pointing to the series of massive over-runs of every single large scale nuclear power station that has begun construction in western economies in the last three decades.
But just park those numbers for a moment. The killer observation was that the Coalition nuclear plan would account for less than four per cent of the country’s electricity needs by around 2045. Less than four per cent.
This was highlighted by energy transition expert Simon Mason on LinkedIn. He put the nuclear rollout in the context of Australia’s energy needs over the next few decades – assuming that coal closes as planned.
The Coalition wants to stop renewables, so transmission lines don’t need to be built. Do you spot the gap? The Coalition, apparently, wants to fill it with the most expensive fuel currently available, fossil gas.
O’Brien was asked about this on the ABC. How much nuclear will be part of the energy grid under the Coalition plan? He channelled the White Queen, again.
“Firstly, I’m a Liberal. I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money. But to be really clear, our focus is on the Australian people who want to save money. And so we have designed this policy with a crystal clear vision of Australians paying for cheaper, cleaner …”
No real answer there. He did go on to say that it was the Coalition’s hope that to build “multi” nuclear units at the seven sites it has chosen across five states.
That, if it’s true, will require a significant expansion of transmission infrastructure to support that. None of the sites chosen are fitted out to deal with any units of the size contemplated by the Coalition – up to 1.4 GW – let alone “multiple” units.
And the fact is that those sites are owned by private companies, which are already in the process of filling up available transmission capacity with billions of dollars of investments in their own battery, hydro and hydrogen projects.
So, if the Coalition were – as National leader David Littleproud repeatedly demands – to stop the rollout of wind, solar, storage and transmission, and to rip up contracts for wind and solar written by the Commonwealth – then Australia is simply not going to have enough power.
But are they really going to stop renewables? O’Brien didn’t seem to know. He refused to answer any questions about the planned “mix” of technologies.
If it doesn’t stop renewables in their tracks, then they are still going to need all the transmission lines – 5,000kms not the 28,000 kms that the Coalition claims – that the nuclear plan is supposedly designed to avoid. But of course, that claim is bunkum anyway.
The Coalition is forging ahead despite the fact that big energy users, such as the aluminium smelters, say they don’t want nuclear. The utility industry says it is not interested. Bankers and insurers won’t touch it with a barge pole, because of the risks.
Former chief scientist Allan Finkel, an admirer of nuclear technology, says it would not be possible to get nuclear in Australia before the mid 2040s, even if we wanted to. He says a focus on nuclear rather than renewables makes climate targets impossible to meet.
This was a point taken up, with typical vigour, by former prime minister Paul Keating over the weekend.
“Dutton, like Abbott, will do everything he can to de-legitimise renewables and stand in the way of their use as the remedy nature has given us to underwrite our life on earth,” Keating wrote.
“By his blatant opposition to renewables, Dutton calls into question and deprecates all the government has done to provide Australian business with a reliable and dependable framework for investment in renewables.”
But what do we hear? Ziggy Switkowski, who just a few years ago said large scale nuclear had had its day, is now singing its praises.
But another ardent support of the flick to nuclear is Dr Adi Patterson, the former boss at ANSTO, who describes the CSIRO GenCost report as a “form of fascism” and compares the Australian Energy Market Operator to “Animal Farm”. He says large scale nuclear is not a good idea, and says he has been saying as much for more than two years.
“People are not listening,” he told Sky News. “I think we should be building reactors at the scale of a large wind turbine.”
Patterson suggested that 5 MW so called “micro” reactors being promoted by the likes of Bill Gates, Westinghouse and Rolls Royce could be spread right across the grid. “They could literally be built in our backyard,” Patterson told Sky News. “These are being built now,” he added. Which is actually not true – they are an idea, not yet a thing.
Consider this, though. Just to match the capacity of retiring coal fired power stations, for a start, would require around 4,000 of these nuclear micro reactors to be scattered across the country – in our backyards, as Patterson suggests – a bit like Labor’s community batteries rollout , but with nuclear in place of lithium ion.
What could possibly go wrong?
“I’m sure I’ll take you with pleasure!” the White Queen said. “Two pence a week, and jam every other day.” Alice couldn’t help laughing, as she said, “I don’t want you to hire me – and I don’t care for jam.” “It’s very good jam,” said the Queen. “Well, I don’t want any to-day, at any rate.” “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.” “It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day’,” Alice objected. “No, it can’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know.” “I don’t understand you,” said Alice. “It’s dreadfully confusing!”From: Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.
In short: Debate on Australia’s nuclear future will need to include clear information on the transportation and storage of nuclear waste.
Currently Australia doesn’t have a national storage facility, so low and medium level waste is kept at more than 100 locations around the country.
What’s next? As Australia debates nuclear power in the lead-up to the federal election, more answers will be needed about where to store radioactive waste and for how long.
…………………………………………………………………..”Each year Australia produces about 45 cubic metres of radioactive waste arising from these [research reactor medical and industrial”] uses and from the manufacture of the isotopes.”
This amounts to about 40 square metres of low-level waste and 5 square metres of intermediate waste, while the UK and France by comparison each produce about 25,000 cubic metres of low-level waste annually.
But of greater concern is the intermediate and high-level waste that will be produced by the seven nuclear reactors the Coalition plans to get up and running in Australia by 2050.
Peter Dutton in announcing the Coalition’s nuclear plan this week used a previously heard line that one standard-sized reactor produces just a handful of nuclear waste each year.
“If you look at a 450 megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year,” Mr Dutton said.
…………………..Simon Holmes a Court said the Coke can comment greatly underestimates the amount reactors generate.
“Even the small modular reactors would be 2,000 times as much, and that is just high-level radioactive waste alone,” he said.
“It is a lot more than he says ……………………………….
The waste storage site will be needed for waste from the AUKUS submarines regardless of the Coalition’s nuclear energy plans.
The AUKUS deal is bipartisan, so any change of government is unlikely to scuttle it.
Griffith University emeritus professor and energy specialist Ian Lowe told The Conversation that Australia will have to manage high-level radioactive waste when the submarines are decommissioned in 30 years time.
“So, when our first three subs are at the end of their lives – which, according to Defence Minister Richard Marles, will be in about 30 years time – we will have 600 kilograms of so-called ‘spent fuel’ and potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactor and its protective walls,” he said.
“Because the fuel is weapons-grade material, it will need military-scale security,” he said.
Currently Australia’s intermediate level nuclear waste generated at the Lucas Height reactor is taken overseas for processing then returned to Australia for storage.
Remaining unused uranium is removed from the fuel rods with the leftover radioactive waste broken up and mixed with molten glass, then solidified in steel canisters.
The last time this happened, in March 2022, it involved a shipment of radioactive waste brought back to Lucas Heights via a high security operation at Port Kembla in Wollongong.
“Four of those canisters, each containing 500 kilograms of vitrified waste that is radiologically equivalent to 114 rods sent to the UK in a shipment in 1996, were received back from the UK,” according to a statement from Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
It was logistically a major operation carried out in relative secrecy in the middle of the night with confirmation only occurring afterwards.
No matter where you are in the Latrobe Valley, you can see the smoke haze. The transmission lines that punctuate the region’s dairy farms and clusters of blue gums all lead to some of the country’s biggest coal-fired power plants, where the plumes of smoke soar from smokestacks and steam from cooling towers.
This valley provides most of Victoria’s electricity, but it’s been on the edge of a precipice. Over the next 11 years, Loy Yang A and Yallourn are expected to be decommissioned. Residents know the writing is on the wall for coal, but confusion over what comes next is creating a deep chasm.
The announcement spread quickly down the valley. Some welcome it, seeing it as a lifeline for their dying community. And then there are pockets of outrage.
But Farmer is helping lead a group of advocates for a healthier and more sustainable valley – and she’s outraged by the nuclear proposal when “we have the technology we need to move forward without it”.
“It’s a slap in the face,” she says. “It’s them going, ‘You’re desperate, so you’ll take it’.”
There are many questions about the Coalition policy, including the cost, what to do about the waste, how the plants could be built and when, how many jobs would it actually create – and how geographically safe would it be to have a nuclear plant near a faultline.
“Why would you even consider putting nuclear on earthquake faultlines?” Farmer says.
“It doesn’t feel like it’s community-driven – no one in the community has been asked about it. They’ve just been told this is what our plan is.”
On Wednesday, Farmer led a snap protest outside the Gippsland National MP Darren Chester’s office. Chester has cautiously welcomed the nuclear policy, saying in a statement it could create “enduring social and economic benefits to our community”, before adding that “more detailed investigations will be required in the years ahead”.
‘Always looking for more jobs’
Traralgon is the biggest town in the valley and is wedged between the power plants and the big hole left by Hazelwood – between a brown coal past and Australia’s commitment to get to net zero emissions by 2050.
Of the 125,000 people who live in the valley, 26,000 call Traralgon home.
In the newsagent it’s buzzing. People are queueing for their Lotto ticket or a copy of the paper. The workers behind the counter won’t say much about nuclear – one thinks it’ll just get her in trouble and the other says she’s supportive but will grab the boss.
The boss is Gary Garth. He’s upfront with his opinion and cares about his community and the number of jobs. He loves the nuclear idea.
“I think there are a lot of hurdles, obviously, they’ve got to get through to do it. But I think the vision is good. And it would be great for the area,” Garth says.
“We are always looking for more jobs for locals and that’s probably the most important thing a society can have: people in employment.”
Decades ago, this area was booming – high-paying jobs created a cashed-up community. But coal is no longer king. The most recent census had unemployment sitting at 6.6%, higher than the Victorian average of 5%.
“If the governments can come up with a way of turning energy into nuclear where it’s safe, safe for the environment, safe for everyone, it’s very clean, so if it can be done, that would be a real benefit to the area,” Garth says.
In parts of the community, renewables are also seen as a threat. Garth describes windfarms as “a disaster for the environment” – he’s worried about the birds and what we do with the materials when they come to the end of their lifespan.
But it’s not a concern he holds for nuclear waste.
“Australia is a big place. They need to be able to come up with something – they seem to do in other countries around the world,” he says.
He thinks the community will vote for it and says the Coalition will have a mandate to proceed with it if it wins power – and that the state government would be foolish not to listen to the electorate.
But on the streets of the valley, not everyone is convinced by the Coalition’s promise.
Ian, a former geologist, says the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, “hasn’t done his homework”.
But another resident, Jesse, thinks it will be a good creator of jobs.
“I think it’s a good thing, especially with all the coal shutting down,” Jesse says.
“I think the nuclear side of things will offer more ongoing jobs [than windfarms]. And we’ll have a stable power supply. Everyone needs the power to keep warm and cook and all that sort of stuff … We need to have a stable power supply.”
‘Softened up for nuclear’
Penelope Swales is sitting in a rare slither of winter sun on her organic farm at the bottom of the Strzelecki Ranges. It’s cut from a different cloth to Traralgon – there’s a rail trail, a brewery and a beloved community band. It lures former city slickers with its shaggy green hills and bush walks, and turns them into locals. Swales was a lawyer before she took up the plough.
“I feed 20 local families with this farm,” she says.
“That cloud between the two trees” – she points to the distance where the smoke is slowly filling the air, making a large cloud that drifts east towards Melbourne – “that’s Loy Yang. So pretty close.”
Swales is joined by her friends Marge Mackay and Lisa Mariah, who have also moved to the valley for its natural beauty and relaxed lifestyle. They don’t want nuclear.
“The demographic here is a little bit odd,” Swales says.
“While most people work in Morwell and Traralgon, progressive and pro-renewable voices don’t get a lot of a look in because most of us live up here in the Strzelecki corridor, which is bisected by the electoral boundary.
“So a bunch of us are on one side and a bunch of us are on the other side.”
“People came in from outside, held public meetings, ran a very slick campaign telling people, ‘this is going to be bad for your community, this is going to destroy your community, this is going to ruin your property values, infrasound will keep you awake at night’,” Swales says.
The fight spread misinformation and put the sleepy community at loggerheads, she says.
“The more progressive people tend to keep their heads down,” she says. “There’s been some very vicious stuff going on. We’ve had vandalism. One of their friends had ‘sell-out’ sprayed on the footpath outside at home. You know, she’s a pensioner.”
The long campaign against renewables has created “fertile ground”, Swales says. If someone says “jobs”, they get the votes.
But the group of friends is determined to fight – they say they’ve done it before. Mackay jumps in and says her community was dumped with coal, was not supported after the Hazelwood fire and is now getting shunted with nuclear. She wants a different future.
“The valley has been the dumping ground for Victoria for a very long time,” she says.
“There is a lack of forward vision for future generations – this is your children and your grandchildren.
We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion “nuke builder” tax, but likely considerably more given the international experience.
We now know that if the federal opposition wins the next election, it proposes to gouge Australians to bankroll a national build-out of government-owned nuclear reactors across seven locations – because private capital won’t touch nuclear.
Coalition Leader Peter Dutton’s fact-free, 900-word press release on the topic – the totality of the Coalition’s policy announcement – failed to produce costings for what would be a long-term, multibillion-dollar “nuke builder” tax. We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion, but likely considerably more given the international experience…………………………………………… (Subscribers only)
The architect of New South Wales’ (NSW) renewable energy transition is set to be the next Climate Change Authority (CCA) chair, with Matt Kean stepping up to take on the job of advising on the options and pace of the national shift to decarbonisation.
The former NSW Liberal MP and state energy minister – who only stepped down from politics late last week – will combine decarbonisation with economic policy in his new role, a job whose importance is taking on an outsized importance in advance of an election set to be fought on how to get to net zero.
The CCA advises the government on climate change policy.
He then handled the NSW emissions reductions target of 70 per cent by 2035.
Today, Kean rejected nuclear as a solution the CCA will support, saying that his department looked into the energy source for NSW and advice was that it would take too long and be too expensive.
He says the advice was from professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte, who was responsible for the British government’s nuclear defence program and is one of the few people in Australia to have actually run a nuclear program.
Retiring chair Grant King restored the agency to “its proper role” supporting the government’s climate goals, says energy and climate change minister Chris Bowen.
“Good climate and energy policy is good economic policy – the Albanese government gets that and so does Matt Kean,” he said in a statement.
“Our ambitious but achievable policies are ensuring our approach is credible and delivers benefits for all Australians. The Climate Change Authority is critical to this agenda.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has betrayed his complete ignorance about the nuclear technology he threatens to impose on the Australian population by a making a fundamental error: He thinks they burn fuel, or energy.
The comments were made in a heated Question Time in parliament house on the first day of the winter session which promises to be focused on energy and climate.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien was ejected from the house by speaker Milton Dick, and Dutton ran close, earning the ire of the speaker on several occasions when he interjected as Labor ministers spoke.
At one point Dutton – trying to tie Labor up in knots over waste from a nuclear submarine, said this, according to Hansard:
Mr Dutton: It’s on relevance. And, perhaps, to be of assistance to the minister, the propulsion system burns energy—that’s how the system is working—and it’s stored in the—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Actually, they don’t burn fuel. That’s the point of them. If they did, they would likely create emissions, as defence minister Richard Marles explained.
Mr MARLES: Actually, it doesn’t burn any fuel, because burning is oxidisation, which is what happens in an internal combustion engine, which is exactly what happens when you use hydrocarbons. What this is is a nuclear reaction which gives rise to power. That is what happens inside the sealed nuclear reactor. The point is that the waste that will need to be disposed of …
And if he doesn’t accept Labor’s word on it, the Opposition leader could also read up on the website of the Nuclear Energy Institute:
“Nuclear plants are different because they do not burn anything to create steam. Instead, they split uranium atoms in a process called fission. As a result, unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants do not release carbon or pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur oxides into the air.”
It reminds me of an encounter I had when I first started driving an EV. It was rubbished by a passer-by who suggested the car would be better off powered by nuclear. He seemed to think you could just shovel uranium into a boiler and off you go. Just top it up at the local refuelling station.
It could be that the aspiring prime minister thinks along the same lines. After all, we are constantly told we should mine Australia’s vast uranium reserves – heck, why not burn them like we do with coal.
It’s not the only major misunderstanding of nuclear by Dutton. He has suggested that what he defines as a small nuclear reactor, around 400 MW, would produce just a single can of coke as waste. It will need to be a very big can.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, of Griffith University’s school of environment and science, told the SMH it was safe to say an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said. “They run on highly enriched uranium and produce a much nastier and a much more intractable set of radioactive waste elements that have to be treated.”
The Coalition’s entire nuclear push is based on lies and misconceptions, from their claim that wind, solar and storage can’t power a modern economy, that their plan needs no additional transmission, that its cheaper than renewables, and that it’s consistent with climate targets.
As virtually all experts have pointed out, with the exception of an heroic rear guard action on Sky News, the policy makes no sense economically, environmentally, or from an engineering point of view.
Perhaps Dutton needs to watch a few more episodes of The Simpsons. Or perhaps not.
“We thank all who stood by us, fought for us, and remained utterly committed in the fight for his freedom,” said WikiLeaks. “Julian’s freedom is our freedom.”
COMMON DREAMS STAFF, Jun 24, 2024,https://www.commondreams.org/news/julian-assange-plea-deal WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Monday reached a deal with the U.S. government, agreeing to plead guilty to one felony related to the disclosure of national security information in exchange for his release from Belmarsh Prison in the United Kingdom.
A related document was filed in federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth. Under the plea agreement, which must still be approved by a judge, the Department of Justice will seek a 62-month sentence, equal to the time that the 52-year-old Australian has served in the U.K. prison while battling his extradition to the United States.
Assange faced the risk of spending the rest of his life in U.S. prison if convicted of Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing classified material including the “Collateral Murder” video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Before Belmarsh, he spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with asylum protections.
“Julian Assange is free,” WikiLeaks declared on the social media platform X, confirming that he left Belmarsh Friday “after having spent 1,901 days there,” locked in a small cell for 23 hours a day.
He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stanstead Airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the U.K.,” WikiLeaks said. “This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grassroots organizers, press freedom campaigners, legislators, and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations.”
“He will soon reunite with his wife Stella Assange, and their children, who have only known their father from behind bars,” the group continued. “WikiLeaks published groundbreaking stories of government corruption and human rights abuses, holding the powerful accountable for their actions. As editor-in-chief, Julian paid severely for these principles, and for the people’s right to know. As he returns to Australia.”
The news of Assange’s release was celebrated by people around the world, who also blasted the U.S. for continuing to pursue charges against him and the U.K. for going along with it.
“Takeaway from the 12 years of Assange persecution: We need a world where independent journalists work in freedom and top war criminals go to prison—not the other way around,” the progressive advocacy group and longtime Assange supporter RootsAction said on social media.
Leftist Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in a statement: “I congratulate Julian Assange on his freedom. Assange’s eternal imprisonment and torture was an attack on press freedom on a global scale. Denouncing the massacre of civilians in Iraq by the U.S. war machine was his “crime”; now the massacre is repeated in Gaza I invite Julian and his wife Stella to visit Colombia and let’s take action for true freedom.”
Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt, who represents Melbourne in Parliament, said on social media that “Julian Assange will finally be free. While great news, this has been over a decade of his life wasted by U.S. overreach.”
“Journalism is not a crime,” Bandt added. “Pursuing Assange was anti-democratic, anti-press freedom, and the charges should have been dropped.”
The women-led peace group CodePink said in a statement:
Without Julian Assange’s critical journalism, the world would know a lot less about war crimes committed by the United States and its allies. He is the reason so many anti-war organizations like ours have the proof we need to fight the war machine in the belly of the beast. CodePink celebrates Julian’s release and commends his brave journalism.
One of the most horrific videos published by WikiLeaks was called “Collateral Murder,” footage of the U.S. military opening fire on a group of unarmed civilians–including Reuters journalists–in Baghdad. While Julian has been in captivity for the past 14 years, the war criminals that destroyed Iraq walked free. Many are still in government positions today or living off the profits of weapons contracts.
While Julian pleads guilty to espionage—we uphold him as a giant of journalistic integrity.
Vahid Razavi, founder of Ethics in Tech and host of multiple NSA Comedy Nights focusing on government mass surveillance, told Common Dreams that “they took a hero and turned him into a criminal.”
“Meanwhile, all of the war criminals in the files exposed by WikiLeaks via Chelsea Manning are free and never faced any punishment or even their day in court,” he added. “You can kill journalists with impunity, just like Israel is doing right now in Gaza.”
British journalist Afshin Rattansi said, “Let no one think that any of us will ever forget what the British state did to the most famous journalist of his generation.”
“They tortured him—according to the United Nations special rapporteur on torture—at the behest of the United States,” Rattansi noted.
Andrew Kennis, a professor of journalism and social media at Rutgers University, told Common Dreams that “Julian Assange is nothing less than the Daniel Ellsberg of our time.”
The nuclear lobby in Australia has conceded one aspect of the nuclear power plan that the federal Coalition does not like talking about – that the rooftop solar embraced by households and businesses will have to make way for the Opposition’s planned reactors.
This is not actually a surprise to anyone associated with the energy industry, because it is quite clear that there is no room for an “always on” generator of any type – be it coal, gas or nuclear – in a grid dominated by variable wind and solar.
In Australia, this is particularly the case because of the continent’s magnificent solar resources, and the huge uptake of rooftop PV by consumers, which already stands at more than 20 gigawatts (GW) and is forecast to quadruple to more than 80 GW in coming decades.
In South Australia, rooftop solar has already met all local demand on occasions. The market operator predicts that this will occur in Western Australia within a few years, and in other bigger states on the eastern seaboard within a decade.
How do you jam nuclear reactors into this energy mix? Renew Economy has asked this question on several occasions – here and here in particular – and it now seems the nuclear lobby has finally fessed up to the solution: Switch off rooftop solar.
“I think what will happen is that nuclear will just tend to push out solar,” Robert Barr, a member of the lobby group Nuclear for Climate told the ABC in a story that addresses the issue.
Barr admitted that nuclear power plants have some flexibility, but not a lot. They could ramp down to around 60 per cent of their capacity, he says. But the reality is that the their economics – already hugely expensive – blow out even further if not running all the time. Solar panels would have to make way, he said.
“There’ll be an incentive for customers to back off,” he said. “And I think it wouldn’t be that difficult to build control systems to stop export of power at the domestic level. It’d be difficult for all the existing ones but for new ones, it just might require a little bit of smarts in them to achieve that particular end — it can be managed.”
Almost everyone involved in the Australian grid – be they developers, generators, network operators, investors, advisors or regulators – recognises that the system design is moving on from “base-load” and always on power to variable renewables and dispatchable power (mostly storage).
But this new reality this does not support the fossil fuel industry’s view of the world, not their economic and business models, and while the Coalition has made its position against large scale wind and solar clear, it hasn’t talked about the impact on rooftop solar, apart from saying it supports it in principle.
But how?
Some insight into what is shaping the Coalition’s thinking comes from testimony to parliamentary committee in 2021 by James Fleay, a former oil and gas executive and founder of the advocacy group Down Under Nuclear Energy (Dune), who serves as an advisor to Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien.
Fleay told the parliamentary committee looking into future energy choices that “baseload” architecture had served Australia well for a century and should not be changed. “We have to make a decision about grid architecture,” he said.
“We cannot adapt our energy usage to accommodate the rising and setting of the sun or seasonal weather uncertainties without enormous human and economic costs,” Fleay said, before adding later: “I think that is possible and true only at the margins, but not in bulk.”
Basically Fleay admitted that it is a choice between models – baseload or renewable, and in various interviews has said Australia’s isolated grid as a reason not to go the wind and solar route because of the inability to export.
But that same isolation has an equal, or arguably greater impact on nuclear because of its dependence on high production rates, known as capacity factors. The French nuclear generators wouldn’t survive without the connection to other European grids and the ability to export to other countries.
To be sure, the Australian market operator is pushing hard to be able to “orchestrate” rooftop solar and other consumer energy resources as a way of managing the grid. But the extent it would need to do so with multiple gigawatts of “always on” nuclear would dramatically increase.
The energy industry knows this. The two – nuclear and rooftop solar – simply can’t go out on the same date. The Coalition, or at least its advisors, also appear to know this. But when will it be honest about this situation with the general public and the households and businesses with solar on their rooftops?
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
Speaking on Sunday, the environment and water minister criticised the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.
‘He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,’ Ms Plibersek told Sky News.
According to analysis released by the Smart Energy Council using data from the latest GenCost report, Labor’s non-nuclear energy plan is estimated to cost $117bn through to 2050, while the Coalition’s pledge would cost upwards of $600bn.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has flagged an evolution in the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, revealing that each of the seven sites could host multiple reactors.
But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.
‘One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,’ Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.
‘Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.
‘You’re talking about multi-unit plants.’
An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.
‘The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,’ he said.
‘From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.
‘Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts’.
Last week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia on the sites of former coal fired power stations, adding no more than 10GW to the power grid, meaning renewables will remain the vast majority of the energy mix.
Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver ‘at best’ 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.
‘In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,’ he said.
Nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage, Mr Grimes said.
‘The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,’ he said.
The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites.
‘They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,’ Mr Grimes said.
‘It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.’
Separate analysis released by CSIRO put the cost of building a large-scale nuclear reactor at $8.6bn, bringing the total cost to approximately $60bn, however nuclear projects are often subject to hefty delays and soaring cost overruns.
Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.
‘We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,’ Ms Plibersek said.
‘We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.
‘He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.’
In short: The Coalition is unable to provide details about the amount of power to be generated by its proposed nuclear reactors.
Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders that would be determined after the election, despite industry groups calling for more information to inform investments.
What’s next? The Coalition says it will release information about the cost of its plans in future.
The Coalition is unable to say how much nuclear energy it plans to generate, its energy spokesperson says.
The amount of power is one of many details the opposition did not provide on Wednesday when it said it wanted to build seven nuclear plants across five states between 2035 and 2050. Other details include cost and precise timing.
But business and experts say the power generation figure is essential for energy investors to understand what balance of nuclear, renewables and gas the Coalition proposes for Australia, and plan their investments accordingly.
Energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC’s Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies.
“We would be leaving that to the nuclear energy co-ordinating authority,” he said.
“That independent body is to work out at each site what is the feasibility of certain technologies and only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts.”
That is unlikely to satisfy the concerns of industry groups who point to Labor’s annually updated Integrated System Plan, which lays out its proposed energy mix in gigawatts.
Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said this was important for “certainty” and investor confidence.
But Mr O’Brien said gigawatts were “very specific” and the Coalition would instead offer its “assumptions” and provide a broad figure for “how much we believe there will be come 2050”.
“I’m a Liberal and I appreciate and respect that investors want to make money, but to be really clear our focus is on the Australian people that want to save money,” he said.
Mr O’Brien also revealed the Coalition planned to have multiple reactors on some sites, which would increase the amount of energy produced.
Estimates from experts have put the amount of power able to be generated by seven nuclear sites at about 10 gigawatts, or less than 4 per cent of Australia’s energy needs.
Mixed signals on renewables
The proposed energy contribution of nuclear is also relevant to the status of the renewables rollout and the extent to which the Coalition would seek to continue it in government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has consistently framed the nuclear policy as an alternative to renewables and even suggested there would be a renewables “cap”.
But Mr O’Brien said on Sunday that was not the Coalition’s policy and the Coalition was “united around the idea by 2050 of a net zero power grid”.
Mr O’Brien added he did not believe renewable energy could be used as Australia’s “baseload” power source, labelling the government’s 85 per cent renewables target as unrealistic.
Asked what the Coalition would do about the looming short-term energy shortfall, given 90 per cent of coal power is set to exit the National Electricity Market within the next decade and before the first proposed nuclear plant would be built, Mr O’Brien said the answer was to “pour more gas into the market” but also said he would “welcome all renewables”.
“The government believes the aim of the game is to maximise the amount of renewables. We want the optimum amount.”
The government supports renewables through its Capacity Investment Scheme, which underwrites approved renewables projects to give investors a “revenue safety net”. The Coalition’s plans for that scheme in government are not clear, but Mr O’Brien promised renewable and gas projects would be forthcoming.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the Coalition’s plan threatened the progress of renewables in the short-term.
“You’re not going to see [a nuclear plant] for a decade at least. Australians want relief from their energy bills now,” she told Sky News on Sunday.
“We’re seeing renewables entering our energy market, bringing down the cost of energy. It’s already happening, and instead Peter Dutton’s got some plan he won’t tell you the cost of that might help in a decade’s time.
“We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the breaks on, instead of us leading the world with renewable energy he wants to put us on the slow lane. It’s just mad.”
John Grimes, chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said the Coalition policy was “a spoke in the wheel of progress” and was actively undermining renewables.
Mr Littleproud again on Sunday morning said the explicit intention of the nuclear policy was less renewables.
“That’s just math,” he told Sky News, saying there would be fewer transmission lines and less “tearing up [of] prime agricultural ground” under the Coalition.
While the Coalition has not yet revealed the cost, Mr Littleproud said the construction costs were “in the ballpark” of $8 billion per unit.
Asked about the higher cost of nuclear in most expert analysis, he said the government would “control” the plants and could run them in a way that would “drive down the cost”.
Mr O’Brien also flagged a plan for “market reform” to reduce prices, but did not elaborate.
Two years of community consultation to ‘make sure they understand’
Mr Littleproud and Mr O’Brien both flagged two and a half years of local community consultation would be needed before site details could be finalised, but that communities would not be given the opportunity to veto.
“That is not international best practice,” Mr O’Brien said.
“We are taking this to the Australian people, we are seeking a mandate.”
He added he did not expect that communities were likely to oppose the plants.
Mr Littleproud said he planned to “take the Australian people on a journey … [we would] start the two and a half year consultation process with those communities to make sure they understood”.
Dutton’s nonsensical foray into nuclear energy reminds Australian voters again of the issues prevalent within this country’s Constitution and democratic institutions, Dr Klaas Woldring writes.
WE HAVE RECENTLY experienced the nonsense of the “No” vote by the official Opposition against the highly sensible proposal by the Albanese Government to introduce an Indigenous Voice in the archaic Australian Constitution.
The Dutton Opposition then made use of the staggering ignorance of the voters about the white Australian Constitution. Now it is preparing to drag Australia into the creation of unnecessary nuclear energy plants which would be developed in seven safe conservative electoral seats.
The use of the single-member electoral system is now planned for an energy system that is not supported by the majority and is indeed widely rejected for several important reasons. It should be noted now that the planned use of single-member districts for this purpose is, in fact, a further negative of that system.
The role of the Opposition Leader to develop opposing policies – the Westminster function of an Opposition leader – has now resulted in quite unnecessary threats to endanger society.
David Crowe in the Sydney Morning Herald has already pointed out‘two black holes before getting to countless questions about secondary details’ — the cost to build them and to run them for decades, as well as design.
Above all, Australians surely can generate plenty of solar and wind energy. The need for nuclear power simply does not exist in Australia at all.
To try to use safe conservative seats for that negative purpose is to further abuse that electoral system. That two-party system is altogether no longer providing an effective democracy.
We have had a gut full of pork barrelling, of neglected safe seats and of the fact that only a handful of seats are decided on the first count, the rest on compulsory preferences. Let’s stop pretending that this is a fair system, nothing could be further from the truth.
Australian voters have already turned their back on the Liberal Party, voted strongly for Independent women and the Greens in 2022 and, by doing so, essentially said goodbye to the two-party system.
However, further reflection is needed as to what that means and what will replace it.
The major parties may be reluctant to replace the single-member electoral district system with a much more democratic system.
Although it had a marginally positive election outcome for the ALP in 2022, as it still delivered its majority government despite a very low primary vote of 32.6%, it is further proof that major electoral system change is in fact long overdue.
The single-member district system with compulsory preferencing has strongly, but quite unfairly, favoured the major parties. The outcome also still resulted in severe under-representation of the Greens in the House of Representatives even though they ended up with four seats.
Proportionally, they should have gained around 18 seats. A Proportional system naturally is based on multi-member seats. Still, the somewhat unusual 2022 Election outcome does not mean that the electoral system has changed at all.
The Oppositionist culture will continue — clearly a potential threat to unity and progress in Australia. However, this may not be the preferred way of Prime Minister Albanese either.
His stated preference is for cooperation — also for fairness and democratic representation. Really, here is his opportunity. The Westminster legacy of Australia’s inherited parliamentary and electoral systems is no longer really fit for the purpose intended.
Even in the UK and U.S., this is widely recognised. Certainly, the Greens and most – perhaps all of the Independents as well – will now reflect on campaigning for a more democratic electoral system.
For nearly half the voters – culturally diverse – the system is altogether of questionable value. Therefore, it is high time to move away from the two-party system and the single-member district electoral system that produces it.
Governance and political education have to be a much more prominent part of the longer-term reforms, but the electoral system can be changed straight away. A new electoral law can be developed right now. The Parliament has the constitutional power to make electoral reforms. That is stated in several clauses.
Multi-member electoral systems (MMP) could be 15 of, say, 10 MPs for the Federal House of Representatives. This would yield a national multi-party system and more Independents.
The nonsensical need for Opposition leaders to dream up unhelpful alternatives against the government party would disappear forever. The emphasis would be on cooperation rather than Opposition, a major step forward in the nation.
The recent political history in Australia demonstrates that the need for system change is urgent. The new electoral system should be national, not based on based on federal-state boundaries.
Of course, similar system changes should follow in the federal states as well.
Setting aside the numerous other criticisms of Peter Dutton’s one-page, uncosted nuclear plan, it’s worth pointing out that it completely relies on a crucial, non-renewable resource: time.
The Coalition’s plan is to get one nuclear power plant up and running by 2035, with more to come soon after. Experts say this timeline is implausible. But even if we take the word of a politician promising to deliver an enormous and technically challenging project far in the future over the expertise of subject matter authorities, 2035 is still more than a decade away……………………………… (Subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/20/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-climate-change-timeline/
Unlike nuclear, solar is also extraordinarily cheap, at least up-front, and large-scale projects can be delivered for comparative peanuts — and with blinding speed.
There are now almost 4 million homes spread across the country with solar installations, and the electricity they generate accounted for about 12 per cent of Australia’s needs last year.
It’s a constituency that politicians would tackle at their peril.
Earlier this year, the Coalition made a curious, significant move.
David Littleproud, the leader of the National Party, broke cover and wholeheartedly threw his support behind rooftop solar and household batteries.
The Nationals, he said, were not against renewable energy, only large-scale projects such as wind farms and transmission lines that were “tearing up the environment”.
Quite the opposite — the National Party wanted as many Australian households to get solar and batteries as would have them.
The pitch, which was quickly backed by opposition leader Peter Dutton, evidently had a few purposes.
For starters, it clearly distinguished the opposition from the Labor government, whose plan to decarbonise the power system rests largely on big-ticket renewable energy and transmission items.
In one fell swoop, the Coalition was able to say it was pro-renewable energy while being able to attack the government’s own green plans as environmentally and economically dangerous.
What’s more, the shift was a clear nod — or a sop, depending on who you ask — to the enormous and growing political clout of Australia’s solar-owning class.
Lastly, as both Mr Littleproud and Mr Dutton have repeatedly since pointed out, rooftop solar was an ideal complement for the central plank of the Coalition’s energy plans — nuclear.
Dangers in the detail?
The thinking behind that pivot has been on full display in recent days after the Coalition finally unveiled the major details of its energy policy for the upcoming federal election.
Under the plans, Australia would get seven nuclear power plants by the middle of the century — five large-scale ones across New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria and two small ones across South Australia and Western Australia.
No longer would the renewable emphasis be on scores of new wind and solar farms in regional areas and the high-voltage power lines needed to plug them into the grid.
It would instead be directed towards people’s rooftops, “an environment that you can’t destroy”, according to Mr Littleproud.
But hiding behind this veil of logic from the Coalition, energy experts reckon, is a potentially fatal flaw.
Solar power and nuclear power don’t play nicely together.
“That’s another untested and questionable part of this whole strategy,” said Dylan McConnell, a senior researcher and energy analyst at the University of NSW.
“What happens if we look into a system that is largely dominated by … a significant proportion of … behind-the-meter solar?
“People are going to continue to install rooftop solar and, in fact, the Coalition is supportive of that.
At the heart of this tension are the differing — and some argue incompatible — characteristics of nuclear and solar power.
On the one hand, nuclear reactors are the quintessential base-load generators that can — and want to — run at or near full capacity all the time.
Not only are they well-suited to the task technically, nuclear plants also have an economic imperative to operate flat-out given their monumental development costs.
These development costs are typically exacerbated by very long lead times — lead times subject to significant blowouts — in which debts are incurred and eye-watering amounts of interest can accrue.
The hare and the tortoise
Paying off those debts is paramount for the owner of a nuclear plant.
Failure to do so can be financially ruinous.
And the way to do that is to produce and sell as much electricity as is technically possible.
By contrast, solar power — specifically from photovoltaic cells typical of suburban rooftops — are the archetypal source of variable renewable energy.
They produce the most power when the sun is shining during the day, none when it’s not, and their output can be highly variable depending on the conditions.
Unlike nuclear, solar is also extraordinarily cheap, at least up-front, and large-scale projects can be delivered for comparative peanuts — and with blinding speed.
For a household, the cost of a 10-kilowatt system — an installation capable of meeting much of an average customer’s needs — can be done for a few thousand dollars.
In other words, if nuclear power is the proverbial tortoise, solar is the hare.
None of which is to dismiss the technical and economic challenges that solar presents, namely, how to back it up when it’s not producing — a very big task indeed.
But there is another crucial way in which solar and nuclear — or any base-load power such as coal, for that matter — clash.
Solar generation, by its very nature, peaks in the middle of the day.
As ever-more Australians install seemingly ever-more solar panels on their roofs, that peak in solar output is becoming truly epic in its proportions.
Rooftop solar is a beast
or example, there are times in South Australia when rooftop solar alone can account for more than the entire demand for electricity in the state.
To ensure South Australia’s electricity system doesn’t blow up, virtually all other generators have to pare back their output to a bare minimum or switch off entirely.
And even then, South Australia’s surplus rooftop solar generation has to be exported to other states or wasted.
Rooftop solar can do this because it’s largely uncontrolled and flows simply by dint of the sun shining.
It was partly for this reason that South Australia’s only base-load coal plant retired in 2016.
Of course, there are many more times when rooftop solar provides precisely 0 per cent of South Australia’s power needs.
But it all goes to illustrate the very real challenges that base-load nuclear would face, and the very real trends that are unlikely to grind to a halt between now and 2035, by when the Coalition hopes to have the first of its nuclear reactors up and running.
A quick glance at the numbers will tell you all you need to know about the popularity — and power — of rooftop solar in Australia.
There are now almost 4 million homes spread across the country with solar installations, and the electricity they generate accounted for about 12 per cent of Australia’s needs last year.
Bruce Mountain, the director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, summed it up this way: “Rooftop solar has few opponents.”
“It’s the one thing that keeps on growing despite the impasse at a national level,” Professor Mountain said.
“And I think there’s much more to go to realise the potential for that, most notably on factory roofs.”
Something has to give
Professor Mountain said “I’m kind of open to the idea of nuclear”, noting that it was being taken seriously by many other developed countries seeking to decarbonise their electricity supply.
He also pointed out that Australia’s development of large-scale renewable energy projects and, particularly, the transmission lines needed to support them, had hardly been a glowing success to date.
In any case, Professor Mountain suggested the fact the Coalition was proposing to own and operate any nuclear power stations was an acknowledgement that there was no commercial case for the technology in Australia.
On that point, Dr McConnell from the University of NSW agreed.
Dr McConnell said the economic obstacles in front of nuclear in Australia were enormous, and a big one was rooftop solar.
He said that in the almost inevitable event that nuclear and solar power clashed, something would have to give.
“The way you might achieve that in a system with lots of rooftop solar is by curtailing [switching off] rooftop solar,” Dr McConnell said.
“And that may not be politically popular either.”
Robert Barr, a power industry veteran and a member of the lobby group Nuclear for Climate, did not shy away from the potential for future tensions, noting that coal was already getting squeezed out of the system by solar.
But Dr Barr said any clash could be easily managed through a combination of price signals that encouraged householders to use more of their solar power and export less, and new reactor technology that could ramp up and down more effectively.
You could probably drop down from 100 per cent down comfortably to like 60 per cent output and on a daily basis,” Dr Barr said of new nuclear technology.
Ultimately, however, Dr Barr argued it may need to be households with solar panels that gave way to nuclear energy for the greater benefit of the electricity system.
Don’t mention the solar wars
Right now, he said, renewable energy was benefiting from taxpayer-funded subsidies that allowed wind and solar projects to make money even when the price of power was below $0.
These subsidies applied to both utility-scale projects and rooftop solar panels, through the large- and small-scale green energy targets introduced by the Rudd Labor government.
They effectively allow such projects to sell their electricity for less than zero — up to a point — and still be in the money.
In the future, Dr Barr said, those subsidies would no longer exist and renewable energy projects would start to be penalised each time the price of electricity went negative.
“I think what will happen is that nuclear will just tend to push out solar,” he said.
“There’ll be an incentive for customers to back off.
“And I think it wouldn’t be that difficult to build control systems to stop export of power at the domestic level.
“It’d be difficult for all the existing ones but for new ones, it just might require a little bit of smarts in them to achieve that particular end — it can be managed.”
Much like the Coalition’s grand policy pitch, those comments might be considered bold given the political heft wielded by millions of solar households.
Last decade, politicians of all stripes got into all manner of trouble when they tried to wind back subsidies known as feed-in-tariffs, which paid customers for their surplus solar power generation.
Solar households, egged on by the industry, mobilised, went on the attack and in many cases forced governments to bend to their will.
And that was at a time when the number of households with solar was a fraction of what it is now.
It’s a constituency that politicians would tackle at their peril.
Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
In addition to the important arguments against the coalition policy that currently proposes building seven nuclear power plants to replace closing coal fired generators, notably that such:
will be likely cost about twice that of firmed renewable generation and take at least 15 years to build – and this in the context where most nuclear plant construction worldwide appears to routinely involve a doubling of both cost and time to build
– and so are dangerously irrelevant to meeting the existential challenge to reduce carbon and methane emissions that are driving climate change;
will require legislative changes at state and federal levels that are to say the least unlikely to be achieved;ignores the challenge of developing workforce skills to manage this technology;
ignores the as yet intractable if not insoluble problem of managing long lived nuclear wastes;
and poses significant risks to the public in the event of nuclear accidents as witnessed in the USA, Ukraine/former USSR, and Japan;
There is also an inevitable and unavoidable risk to workers in the industry and public ‘downwind’ from such reactors from routine exposure to ionising radiation.
This last has to date received little attention and whenever raised results in dismissive but misleading arguments from the nuclear industry advocates, notably that any such exposures to individuals are small and pose little, indeed ‘acceptable’ health risks compared to other risks faced in day to day living and working. Tackling this misinformation as part of the campaign has much to offer in convincing the nuclear target communities and the workers in these that might be seduced by prospects of employment in these facilities that the risks they face are far from insignificant – that, as a community they will face an increase in the incidence of fatal and ‘treatable / curable’ cancers, an increase in other, notably cardio vascular diseases and increased risk of genetic damage affecting children and future generations.
Allow me to introduce myself. I have been an active campaigner on the health effects of ionising radiation since the late 1970s. With two colleagues in 1978 I founded the UK based Radiation and Health Information Service that highlighted the evidence showing the risk estimates from radiation exposure, on which the national and international occupational and public exposure limits were based, grossly under-represented the actual risk.
This radiation-health argument was developed as part of a national campaign that resulted in a significant change of the, until then, pro-nuclear policies of UK unions with members in the industry and a review of Trade Union Congress policy in 1979. It was also an integral part of the union-led national Anti-Nuclear Campaign opposing the Thatcher government’s nuclear expansion – revealed in leaked cabinet minutes as part of the government strategy for undermining the power of the unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the Transport and General Workers Union, (T&GWU) and the General and Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trades union (GMBATU). In late 1980 I took this work on Occupational Radiation risks to the USA establishing the US Radiation and Health Labor Project, auspiced by the Foundation for National Progress / Mother Jones Magazine, that built union support across the country for AFL-CIO policy calling for a reduction in the occupational exposure limit.
Subsequently I worked as a consultant to the Canadian union (CPSU – local 2000) representing workers in the nuclear power industry and built a Canadian coalition of five Unions representing workers exposed to radiation on the job. Linking these North American union demands with those of UK and European unions (also similar concerns from unions in Australia following a 1988 organising tour) reinforced pressures from within the scientific community – notably the US Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) committee.
These sustained pressures led eventually to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reducing the recommended limits for permissible occupational (and public) exposures in 1991. Despite evidence that would have justified a ten-fold reduction (from the 50 mSv annual occupational limit to a limit of 5 mSv) the ICRP limit was only reduced by 40% (to 20 mSv a year but with individual exposures still permitted to 50 mSv in any year so long as the average over 5 years was no higher than 20 mSv).
Since then, a large-scale study of UK, EU, and US nuclear industry workers has shown radiation-induced cancer risks to be on average 2.6 times higher than the estimates used to set the ICRP limits. To put it in simple if statistical terms, the lifetime cancer risk for a worker exposed to the permissible annual dose of radiation over say a 25-year career would be of the order of 6.5% higher than normal. To this should be added the significant health effects of non-fatal cancers, an approximate doubling of the normal rate of cardio-vascular disease and a not insignificant increase in genetic damage to workers children and future generations. Nuclear industry workers face significant, inevitable and largely unavoidable radiation health risks which have so far not been addressed in the debate about Australia possibly buying into this industry.
What needs to be more clearly understood however is that the concern is not just in relation to risks faced by individuals exposed on the job, or from relatively small amounts of radiation released from routine operations of nuclear plants. What is of far greater public concern is the impact of the collective exposure. What is not fully appreciated is that there is simply no safe level of exposure – any dose however small may be the one that causes damage at cellular level in the human body that may show up years later as cancer, genetic damage or some other health effect. it is the total/collective dose that will determine the number of such health effects. Spreading the dose over a larger population will reduce the risk to any individual but not the total health effects. Indeed, it may increase it. An individual affected by cancer can only die once.
These arguments carry weight. They formed a significant part if the discussions within the 2016 South Australian government’s ‘Citizens Jury’ convened to consider proposals to import and store around a third of the world’s nuclear wastes. The concern about radiation and health received special note in the report of this jury to the SA Premier that a two-thirds majority said ‘no – under any circumstances’ to the radioactive waste proposal. The issues can also form the basis for increased collaboration between the trade union, environment, medical reform and public health movements as was the case in the mid 1990s when UK, Labour MP Frank Cook convened a Radiation Roundtable that brought together representatives of these constituencies.
So, within the current debate about a possible Australian Nuclear Power program – alongside the arguments already made about its excessive cost, extended construction time frame, ill-fit within an essential decentralised renewable energy program, risks of major accidents, and the intractable problems of multi-generation waste management, can we please add this concern over health effects that will inevitably result from occupational and public exposures to radiation. Can we particularly focus the attention of trade unions and their members in the seven former coal-fired generation-dependent communities on the effect of these exposures on health of workers who might seek to be employed in operating these facilities and on the health of their families, neighbours, and future generations.
A key demand from unions should be that the occupational limit for annual radiation exposures cbe reduced from the current ICRP level of 20 mSv to a maximum of 5 mSv a year with a lifetime limit of 50 mSV. This revision of standards would put real pressure on the nuclear industry – the current uranium mining and any future enrichment, fuel fabrication, nuclear generation, fuel reprocessing, and waste management – to keep such exposures as low as possible. In the unlikely event of any of the reactor proposals getting the go-ahead there should be baseline monitoring of the health of the community and any workers employed so that any detrimental increase in health effects can be detected early and possibly remediated in the future.
Antinuclear 