Antinuclear

“Gas Trojan horse:” Coalition nuclear push slammed as fossil wedge aimed at renewables

RENEW ECONOMY, Sophie Vorrath, Aug 19, 2024

The chair of Australia’s largest group of clean energy investors has described the federal Coalition’s push for nuclear power as a “gas Trojan horse,” and a political wedge intended to douse investment in renewables and prolong the use of fossil fuels.

John Martin, CEO of renewables developer Windlab and chair of the Clean Energy Investor Group, on Monday named wedge politics as one of biggest issues holding back the shift to renewables in Australia, describing the current industry status quo as “really, really challenging.”

“Australia is the land of wedges,” Martin told the 2024 Clean Energy Investor Conference in Melbourne.

“When I think of the whole nuclear debate, I don’t see that as really about nuclear. It’s a gas Trojan horse,” Martin told the conference.

“If you do any modeling, what will happen? The coal will go, nuclear will take forever, none of us are going to invest in renewables knowing we can’t compete against government-funded nuclear, [so that] big gap will be filled with gas. So there’s a wedge there that’s being aimed at us.”

Painting renewables as a natural enemy of the environment and wildlife is “another fantastic wedge strategy,” Martin says, that likewise threatens to derail progress on decarbonisation, while doing nothing to address the urgent need to reform Australia’s environment and biodiversity protection rules…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/gas-trojan-horse-coalition-nuclear-push-slammed-as-fossil-wedge-aimed-at-renewables/

August 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Call to end nuclear power ban brings heated reaction in Australia

Ft.com, Nic Fildes in Sydney, 12 Aug 24

Opposition wants to change law and build new plants but critics say focus should remain on renewable energy

Liddell Power Station in Australia’s Hunter Valley burned through coal for five decades before closing last year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton now wants Liddell to be reborn as something banned in the country for a quarter of a century: a nuclear power plant. The site in New South Wales is one of seven operating or closed coal-fired plants that Dutton, leader of the centre-right Liberal party, has said could become nuclear power stations as part of a big shift in the way Australia generates its energy.

Nuclear energy is what Australia needs for its “three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”, he said earlier this year. Dutton’s pitch has pushed energy policy to the fore ahead of next year’s election, as Australia — rich in resources and a big exporter of energy in the form of coal, liquefied natural gas and uranium — grapples with how to decarbonise its economy

Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has put its focus on renewable energy, passing legislation that targets a 43 per cent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. It hopes to rapidly phase out coal — which has accounted for almost two-thirds of power generation over the past year — and deliver 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But the opposition Liberals and their allies, the rurally focused Nationals, have pledged to abandon the 2030 target and scrap large-scale wind farm projects. They say nuclear energy could deliver power from the middle of next decade………………………………..

Dutton’s plan would reverse decades of Australian policy and require changes to national and state-level laws in Australia that ban nuclear power. The ban dates from 1998, when John Howard’s conservative government offered it as a quid pro quo to minority parties for supporting the construction of a research reactor near Sydney. It remains the country’s only reactor, producing material for medical and industrial use………………………………………………………………..

Chris Bowen, Australia’s energy minister, has dubbed the opposition’s proposal “a nuclear scam” that is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky. A report in May by CSIRO, the government science agency, argued that generating nuclear energy — whether by building large-scale plants or small modular reactors — would be significantly more expensive than renewables and that building a plant would take at least 15 years. “Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050,” the report concluded.

………………………………Marilyne Crestias, interim chief executive of the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents investors in renewables, said conditions for putting money into projects had improved, but more was needed to improve confidence and clarity around policy. “We need more ambition on climate and energy, not less,” she said.

Jeff Forrest, a partner at LEK Consulting’s energy practice, said the nuclear idea was “a 2040s solution to an energy problem we’ve got today” and said there was frustration among investors and in boardrooms that long-term investment plans could be disrupted by the “left-field” nuclear debate. “Energy investment needs consistent and clear signals. That is really important for long-dated investments and no one wants the rug pulled out from under them,” he said. Around the Loy Yang coal-fired power plant in the Latrobe Valley in the state of Victoria, locals said the nuclear proposal would disrupt plans by its owners to make the region a renewable energy hub after the plant’s closure during the next decade.

Wendy Farmer, Gippsland organiser for Friends of the Earth and president of the Voices of the Valley community group, said the proposal would threaten A$50bn of planned renewable investment. “Are they telling investors to go away?” said Farmer. “Imposing nuclear on these communities without any consultation or discussion with the owners of the sites is an insult and a bullying tactic.”

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

Tim Buckley, director of the Climate Energy Finance think-tank, said the opposition’s proposals would displace private capital with a “communist-style policy” requiring more than A$100bn of public funds. “It is not impossible, but it is financially illogical,” said Buckley, who questioned the move’s political motivations ahead of an election. “This is not nuclear versus renewables. This is about extending the climate wars.”  https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

August 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Ted O’Brien sets out long-term plan for uranium-enrichment industry

Joe Kelly, THE AUSTRALIAN, 31 July 24

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien will call for Australia to develop a sovereign capability at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – including the enrichment, conversion and fabrication of uranium – as new survey results show a dip in support for nuclear power.

In an address in Adelaide on Thursday night, Mr O’Brien will sketch out a long-term national endeavour to strengthen Australia’s energy security, building on the Coalition’s plans to replace retiring coal-fired power stations with up to seven nuclear power plants.

Mr O’Brien’s long-term nuclear plan for Australia now includes three key planks: the unlocking of the nation’s uranium reserves; the building of nuclear power plants; and a longer-term plan to develop expertise across the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle that would involve the development of a uranium-enrichment industry.

The three-pronged plan is aimed at ensuring Australia can eventually be self-sufficient, and not have to rely on global supply chains for the nuclear fuel rods that will be needed to power a future fleet of nuclear power plants…………………….

“Advancing Australia in this direction would set Australia up for the future, not just economically, but also strategically.”

Mr O’Brien will speak about his longer-term vision at an energy event on Thursday night being hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs, where he will also make a case for Australia to develop the capability to export nuclear fuel…………………….

The speech follows SEC Newgate’s release of its latest Mood of the Nation report on Thursday, which reveals only moderate support for nuclear power and a clear preference for renewables and new transmission infrastructure.

The latest tracking survey of 2021 Australians over the age of 18, taken between July 17 and 23, shows support for nuclear is slightly lower than in April at 37 per cent, while 39 per cent of respondents say they are against nuclear, and 23 per cent are neutral.

The results show a clear preference for building large-scale wind and solar farms with new transmission lines (50 per cent of respondents prefer this option), rather than nuclear power plants that use existing transmission infrastructure (26 per cent of people prefer this option).

Support for the Coalition’s policy to build seven new nuclear power plants is 39 per cent, while 35 per cent of respondents say it makes them less likely to vote with the Coalition, and 26 per cent say it makes them more likely to vote for the Opposition at the next election.

Of those who oppose the Coalition plan, most objections relate to safety concerns (41 per cent say it is too dangerous). However, 19 per cent of opponents to the Coalition plan believe renewables are superior.

August 2, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Prime Minister Albanese’s hypocrisy on matters nuclear

Reverse nuclear secrecy. Albo or Dutton? What’s the scam?

Michael West Media, by Rex Patrick | Jul 28, 2024 

“……………………………………………………………………..At the same time, the Prime Minister has launched a full-scale attack on Dutton’s half-baked scheme to build seven nuclear power reactors. Albanese’s problem is that much of Labor’s critique of Dutton’s contentious plans applies to AUKUS too.

It’s hard to criticise power reactors when you’re the man who stamped approval on the $368B AUKUS program as you swung by the political Kabuki show in San Diego last year.
Which leaves the Prime Minister exposed as a hypocrite on an issue he would like to put at the centre of his election campaign.  https://michaelwest.com.au/reverse-nuclear-secrecy-albo-or-dutton-whats-the-scam/

July 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition to fast-track nuclear power.

Pearls and Irritations, By Ian McAuley, Jul 27, 2024

The Coalition’s nuclear power idea is based on an obsolete model of electricity supply

Circulating in the media are three arguments against nuclear power in Australia. One is based on safety, an emotive issue, involving unresolved questions about future costs, and the dangers are probably overstated. The danger issue doesn’t need to be argued, however, because the main problems with the Coalition’s nuclear power plans have to do with cost and the long time before the first kWh would be generated.

Those impediments were confirmed in a speech earlier this month by AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman: Australia’s energy transition: What’s needed to keep the momentum going. He said:

Our ISP [Integrated System Plan] does not model nuclear power because it is not permitted by Australian law, and development of nuclear power generation is not a policy of any government. But we know from our work with the CSIRO on the GenCost report that nuclear is comparatively expensive, and has a long lead time. Even on the most optimistic outlook, nuclear power won’t be ready in time for the exit of Australia’s coal-fired power stations.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has just released an assessment of the viability of small modular nuclear reactors, which feature strongly in the Coalition’s proposals. These reactors are still at an early development stage: it will be many years before they become established. Although the study does not explicitly address costs, it does point out that early adopters are likely to face much higher costs than those who wait for SMRs s to become a mature product. As ATSE President Katherine Woodthorpe explains on ABC Breakfast, small modular reactors are unlikely to become a realistic energy source in Australia for decades, and our large coal-fired generators are closing in the next few years.

Writing in The Conversation Asma Aziz of Edith Cowan University reminds us of another cost component not covered in the Coalition’s plans: Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle. The Coalition’s idea is about replacing retiring coal-fired generators with nuclear plants, plugged into the existing transmission infrastructure. But as she points out, demand for electricity is growing rapidly, which means the cost of upgrading the transmission network should be included in the Coalition’s plans. (It is already included in the costings for renewable energy.) The other point she stresses is that all power plants, whatever their technologies, are subject to outages, planned and unplanned. A distributed set of comparatively small solar and wind plants therefore need less transmission redundancy than large centralized nuclear plants.

There is a fourth, and more basic problem with the Coalition’s nuclear proposal. It’s based on an old and inflexible “base load” model, which was determined by the technology of coal-fired generation. There has to be enough capacity in the system to cope with demand peaks, and that was achieved by keeping the boilers hot, keeping the generators spinning, and shovelling in heaps of coal as demand rose. Nuclear is a little different, in that shovels aren’t involved, but the principle is the same.

There are now more flexible and lower-cost ways to meet peaks……………………………………………………………

All the above is in the context of a debate about the comparative cost of nuclear energy and renewables. The Australian community is being distracted from that debate, because the Murdoch media and Coalition-aligned think tanks are spreading absurd misinformation and disinformation about the cost of renewable energy. ……

Even if nuclear power plants were cheaper than renewables (they’re certainly not), there is no way they could replace coal-fired stations as they come to the end of their lives. The lead time for nuclear power is just too long. As Michael West explains, there is a constellation of forces, including the Institute of Public Affairs, Putin’s mate Tucker Carlson, and the Murdoch media, pushing to keep oil and gas burning. That would have to involve new “base-load” coal-fired stations: there is no way to extend the life of our old stations for twenty or more years while nuclear power gets developed.

The other driver of the Coalition’s policy is an intention to cripple the renewable industry through creating uncertainty. That way they can confirm their claim that the government’s renewable plans are failing. It’s doubtful that any seriously cashed-up investor is convinced by the Coalition’s nuclear argument, but the belief that next year’s election could see the election of a government of Trumpian crazies is enough to make investors cautious. ………………more https://johnmenadue.com/coalition-to-fast-track-nuclear-power-north-korean-style-weekly-roundup/

July 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton’s nuclear delusion an exercise in stupidity.

Aspects of the proposed program also go distinctly against the supposedly free market individualism so treasured by those on Dutton’s side of politics. If nuclear power was to become the fundamental means to decarbonise the Australian economy by 2050, it would entail crushing levels of debt and heavy government stewardship. 

By its very nature, the Commonwealth would have to take the reins of this venture, given that private investors will have no bar of it

By Binoy Kampmark | 23 July 2024

Peter Dutton’s sketchy plan for Australia to go nuclear is nothing more than a political distraction with no actual benefits for the country, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

POLITICS AND FACTS are not necessarily good dinner companions. Both often stray from the same table, taking up with other, more suitable company. The Australian Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, has never been discomforted by facts, preferring the chimera-like qualities demagoguery offers. His vision for Australia is admirably simple and simplistic. 

In foreign policy, he supports U.S. interventions in any theatre of the globe without question. Ditto such allies as Israel. To the distant north, the evil Yellow Horde is abominated. Domestically, matters are similarly one-dimensional. Irregular boat arrivals are to be repelled with necessary cruelty. And then there is a near pathological hatred of renewable energy.

Needing to find some electoral distraction to improve the Liberal-National Coalition’s chances of returning to office, Dutton has literally identified a nuclear option. Certainly, it is mischievous, throwing those wishing to invest in the problematic Australian energy market into a state of confusion. As with any investment, the business of renewables is bound to also be shaken.

Last month, Dutton finally released some details of his nuclear vision. Seven nuclear projects are envisaged, using sites with currently working or shuttered coal-fired power stations. These will be plants up to 1.4 gigawatts (GW) to be located at Loy Yang in Victoria, Liddell in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Mt Piper near Lithgow, Tarong and Callide in Queensland. Small modular (SMR) reactors are planned for Port Augusta in South Australia and Muja near Collie in Western Australia. 

The SMR gambit is particularly quixotic, given that they have yet to come to viable fruition. Besides, the entire reactor venture already faces glaring legal impediments, as nuclear power is prohibited by Commonwealth and state laws. (The ban on nuclear energy was, with sweet irony, legislated by the Howard Coalition Government a quarter of a century ago.)

Already, the handicaps on the proposal are thick and onerous. Ian Lowe of Griffith University witheringly describes the proposal as ‘legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible’.

The greatest of all handicaps is the fact that Australian governments, despite tentatively flirting with the prospect of a civilian nuclear sector at points, have never convinced the citizenry about the merits of such power. The continuous failure of the Commonwealth to even identify a long-standing site for low-level radioactive waste for the country’s modest nuclear industry is a point in fact.

Aspects of the proposed program also go distinctly against the supposedly free market individualism so treasured by those on Dutton’s side of politics. If nuclear power was to become the fundamental means to decarbonise the Australian economy by 2050, it would entail crushing levels of debt and heavy government stewardship. 

By its very nature, the Commonwealth would have to take the reins of this venture, given that private investors will have no bar of it.

Tom Dusevic, writing in the otherwise pro-Dutton outlet The Australian, put it thus:

‘There is no other way because private capital won’t go anywhere near this risky energy play, with huge upfront costs, very long lead times and the madness that has pervaded our energy transition to meet international obligations.’

The extent of government involvement and ownership of the proposed nuclear infrastructure made The Age and Sydney Morning Herald search for a precedent. It seemed to have an element of “Soviet economics” to it, directly at odds with the Liberal Party’s own professed philosophy of “lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative”.

It would also add to the already monstrous AUKUS obligations Australia has signed up to with the United States and the United Kingdom, a sovereignty-shredding exercise involving the transfer and construction of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra costing upwards and above $368 billion.

The Smart Energy Council has been good enough to offer its own estimate: the seven nuclear plants and reactors would cost somewhere in the order of $600 billion, securing a mere 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy share by 2050.

While draining the treasury of funds, this nuclear-in-Duttonland experiment would do little to alleviate energy costs. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency, along with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), have concluded that nuclear power in Australia would not be prudent in terms of cost relative to other sources of power. The obstacles noted in their 2023-24 report are impressively forbidding. 

According to the report, Australia, for instance, lacks existing nuclear power projects:

‘Therefore, although it is true that all technologies have extensive pre-construction development times, nuclear is unique in that it has an empty development pipeline in Australia.’

Throw in the layers of legal, safety and security steps, any pioneering nuclear plant in Australia would be ‘significantly delayed’, rendering nuclear power’s role in achieving net zero emissions by 2050 a nonsense.

The Dutton plan is scratched of all empirical shape. Estimates are absent. Numbers, absent. Capacity, absent. Figures, if supplied, will be done immediately prior to the next Federal Election, or while in government. Such moves teeter on the edge of herculean stupidity and foolhardiness, at least in Australian conditions. The exercise is also, quite rightly, being seen as an attempt to stealthily retain coal-fired stations while starving continued investment to the renewable sector. 

Dutton’s junior partner, the Nationals, has also been very candid about its position on renewable energy projects.

Party Leader David Littleproud nailed his colours to the mast on that subject early last year. By August 2023, he was explicitly calling for a “pause” to the rollout of wind and solar and transmission links, calling the Albanese Government’s pursuit of its 82 per cent renewables target a “reckless” one. His implicit suggestion: wait for the release of the nuclear genie.

The Coalition Opposition’s nuclear tease continues the tendency in Australia to soil climate policy with the sods of cultural conflict. On any matter, Dutton would be happy to become a flat-Earther were there any votes in it. The problem here is that his proposal might, on some level, be disruptively attractive — in so far as the voters are concerned. With Labor dithering in office with the smallest of majorities, any disruption may be one too many.

July 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

AUKUS – Australia-United Kingdom-United States nuclear pact endangers us all

Agreement is proliferation nightmare

 By Jemila Rushton July 21, 2024   https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/07/21/agreement-is-proliferation-nightmare/—

Australia arms up with UK and US help

The following is a statement to be delivered on July 23 at the 2024 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee event in Geneva by Jemila Rushton, Acting Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Australia. It was endorsed by a number of groups, including Beyond Nuclear. It has been adapted slightly for style as a written piece rather than oral delivery.

We gather in uncertain and dangerous times. All nine nuclear armed states are investing in modernizing their arsenals, none are winding back policies for their use. The number of available deployed nuclear weapons is increasing. We do not have the luxuries of time or inaction.  

Against this background where the proliferation of nuclear weapons is an ongoing concern, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America continue to further develop  AUKUS, an expanded trilateral security partnership between these three governments. 

AUKUS has two pillars. Pillar One was first announced in September 2021 and relates to information, training and technologies being shared by the US and UK to Australia to deliver eight nuclear powered submarines to Australia. Vessels which, if they eventuate, will utilize significant quantities of highly enriched uranium (HEU). It also allows Australia to purchase existing US nuclear submarines. Currently, Australia is committing billions of dollars to both US and UK submarine industry facilities as part of the AUKUS agreement, potentially enabling the further development of nuclear armed capability in these programs. 

Two years ago, during the 2022 NPT Review Conference, many governments expressed concern that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal would undermine the NPT, increase regional tensions, lead to proliferation, and threaten nuclear accidents in the ocean. There remains an urgent need to critique the nuclear proliferation risks posed by AUKUS.

The Australian decision to enter into agreements around nuclear powered submarines was made on the assumption that it would be permitted to divert nuclear material for a non-prescribed military purpose, by utilizing Paragraph 14 of the International Atomic Agency’s (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). The ‘loophole’ of Paragraph 14 potentially allows non-nuclear armed states to acquire nuclear material, which would be removed from IAEA safeguards.

Australia’s proposed acquisition of large quantities of HEU outside of usual IAEA safeguards and scrutiny jeopardizes nonproliferation efforts and fissile material security.  This conference has the mandate to prepare recommendations for the upcoming Review Conference to strengthen rather than weaken the global nonproliferation regime by moving to close the Paragraph 14 loophole. States represented here should negotiate the closure of the Paragraph 14 loophole in the NPT, as it permits Australia and other non-nuclear armed states to obtain nuclear-powered submarines and potentially weapons-grade HEU. 

To eliminate the risk of non nuclear weapons states acquiring nuclear weapons grade HEU,  all states, including AUKUS members, should refrain from sharing the technology and materials that will be transferred if Australia and others acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The paragraph 14 loophole undermines the NPT and needs to be closed.

Pillar Two of AUKUS plans to enhance the joint capabilities and interoperability between the partners, and may draw in other countries to AUKUS. This move is vastly out of step with a strong sense of Pacific regionalism and the long-standing commitment to a Nuclear Free Pacific. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga) is being put under strain in this agreement. It is of grave concern that currently Japan, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand are actively considering their engagement with AUKUS Pillar 2.

We are concerned that the AUKUS trilateral partnership, and any further expansions will exacerbate regional tensions, fuel an arms race and increase risks of war in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly involving China and the United States, and will increase the danger of nuclear escalation in any such conflict. 

Within Australia, First Nations communities have expressed deep concern about the imposition of new military and radioactive waste facilities on their lands. First Nations and broader communities across Australia and throughout the Pacific have noted that AUKUS is part of a rapid militarization of the region, and raises the ever-present threat of nuclear conflict. Recognizing the disproportionate impacts of previous nuclear activities on First Nations or Indigenous Peoples, and the on-going legacies of nuclear weapons testing and activities in the region, there is deep concern for what AUKUS will mean for sovereignty of Small Island States and its impacts on Indigenous lands and Peoples.

The fuel for HEU naval propulsion reactors is weapons-grade, and the spent fuel is weapons-usable.  HEU is the most suitable material for ready and rapid conversion into a nuclear bomb. While removing HEU from a submarine would not be an easy process, the possibility of diverting such material for weapons purposes cannot be ruled out. Meaningful safeguards are extremely limited when the material is on a stealth platform that can disappear for six months at a time.

With the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), there is a mandate to strengthen existing non-proliferation mechanisms. By joining the TPNW, governments can legally confirm that they will not acquire or host nuclear weapons, nor assist with their use or threat of use. We affirm that AUKUS members should make firm their commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament by joining the TPNW as a matter of urgency. 

Jemila Rushton is the Acting Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Australia

July 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Can the Voices model help communities fight off nuclear reactors?

By Bianca Hall and Mike Foley, July 20, 2024

Coal communities across the country – facing the loss of industry, jobs and the social fabric that binds them together – are poised to transition from the fossil fuel that built their histories.

But what the future will look like in towns like Lithgow in NSW and Traralgon in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley is far less certain. Will they pivot to privately owned renewables, or have government-owned and funded nuclear reactor sites imposed on them by a future Coalition government?

Community groups in every site nominated by Peter Dutton as a potential future nuclear site have joined forces to offer their answer to his proposal: no.

Wendy Farmer is president of Voices of the Valley, a community group that formed in the Latrobe Valley after the Hazelwood coal mine fire in 2014, which burned for 45 days and caused health concerns for those living there amid the smoke.

Farmer united community groups from each area nominated for a nuclear plant to campaign together against the plans. Together, they’ve formed an alliance representing seven communities to fight against the proposal, reminiscent of the independent Voices movement that sent Cathy McGowan to federal parliament in 2013 and has since been replicated across the country.

Already, two people are preparing to nominate as independent candidates to take the fight to the next election.

“I’m really hoping that it will show communities that united, we can really make a change,” she says. “We can actually demand what we want as community. To me, it’s really important that we just aren’t dumped on and told ‘this is what’s good for you, and this is what’s going to happen’.”

Kate Hook, who ran as an independent candidate in Calare in central western NSW in 2022, says she’s considering putting her hand up again at the next election against Nationals MP-turned-independent Andrew Gee.

Key to her candidacy, which she would run as a Voices-style campaign, is renewable energy and nuclear. “Is it a bunch of politicians who have just got together and said, ‘Here’s a talking point that will distract from renewable energy’?” she says.

“Because there is already something under way [the switch to renewables], which is an amazing opportunity for this region that we haven’t had in decades, and there’s a risk that that is squandered.”

AGL has announced its ambition to transform the sites of its coal-fired power stations in Victoria and NSW – the last of which is due to close in 2035 – into low-carbon energy “hubs” spanning renewable energy generation, big batteries and green tech manufacturing.

Meanwhile, Dutton in June nominated seven regional communities that he said would be home to nuclear reactors under a future Coalition government, at the sites of current or closing coal power plants.

They would be hosted at Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.

The announcement was made without consultation with the owners of the privately owned coal stations they would replace, according to several well-placed sources.

Unease about Dutton’s nuclear ambition isn’t limited to communities: local MPs are also wary of Dutton’s bid to build reactors on the sites of former coal-fired power plants.

Bathurst MP Paul Toole, who represents Lithgow in the NSW parliament for the Nationals, has criticised the lack of consultation by the federal opposition over the proposed takeover of the Mount Piper plant, about 20 kilometres north-west of Lithgow.

Rather than commit to the party line, he said he would back the community’s position. “I think the community feels as though they’ve been left in the dark,” Toole said last month. “The announcement lacks detail and raises more questions than answers. I’ll be backing the views of my community 100 per cent.”

Calare MP Andrew Gee, an independent who represents Lithgow in federal parliament, is also a sceptic of the opposition’s nuclear plans who has criticised lack of community consultation……………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/can-the-voices-model-help-communities-fight-off-nuclear-reactors-20240716-p5ju4o.html

July 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment