Lithgow mayor SLAMS Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power plant in her town
By PADRAIG COLLINS FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA 14 June 24
A mayor whose town is rumoured to be earmarked for a nuclear power plant if Peter Dutton wins the next Federal Election, slammed that plan on Friday – despite some locals being in favour of it.
On Wednesday, Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien did not deny that the central western NSW town of Lithgow was one of the sites where the Coalition plans to place a nuclear plant.
But fired up Lithgow mayor Maree Statham has shut down speculation that her town could go nuclear if Mr Dutton becomes prime minister in an election to be held within a year.
‘More than four decades ago, this council declared the city to be a nuclear free zone. This policy position remains in place,’ Ms Statham, an independent, said.
‘It is my intention to invite Peter Dutton to visit Lithgow and explain to this community why they should welcome a nuclear power plant in their backyard when no other community across Australia would do this.’
Ms Statham also pointed out that her district is also responsible for supplying water to Australia’s biggest city
‘I will suggest that he also then speak to the more than five million people in Sydney who drink water that is sourced from the catchment where he would like to place nuclear power plants,’ she said.
Another Lithgow councillor, Stephen Lesslie, told Daily Mail Australia that he opposes having a nuclear plant in the town because it would be ‘Expensive, unsafe (and there are) no waste solutions.’
But he said he does not expect much support from people in other parts of Australia for keeping Lithgow nuclear free.
‘If this means that the power plant won’t go where they live then the rest of Australia probably won’t give a damn,’ Mr Lesslie said.
Voters will pass judgment at a coming election in the next year on Mr Dutton’s vision for a nuclear Australia and Anthony Albanese’s government pursuing a renewable-led energy transition.
Until this week, the Coalition had been very coy about where it would put nuclear plants, but Mr O’Brien let the cat out of the bag by not denying a suggestion from radio host Ben Fordham that Lithgow was a prime target………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13529083/Lithgow-mayor-slams-Peter-Dutton-nuclear-plant.html
Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdown.
Climate Media Centre
Energy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.
The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-Alliance – “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023.
“Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years.
“Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement.
“We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.”
IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.”
“Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support.
“Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime.
 Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdownClimate Media CentreEnergy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To arrange interviews, please contact:Danielle Veldre +61 408972997 dan.veldre@climatemediacentre.org.auEmily Watkins +61 420622408 emily.watkins@climatemediacentre.org.au Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-AllianceAndrew has been working with regional communities hosting large scale renewable and transmission infrastructure for more than a decade. He can discuss the policy solutions that are needed to support regional communities to harness the benefits available in the shift to renewable energy.Location: Bungendore, NSW (near Canberra) “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023. “Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years. “Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement. “We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.” IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.” “Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support. “Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime. “Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Our analysts found that SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years. Large-scale reactors often face cost overruns as well. The Flamanville EPR in France is an extreme example of this, with costs having more than quadrupled despite France’s deep expertise on nuclear. |
“Nuclear plants are not a good complement for renewable generation. They can be flexible within a range, however the economics rely upon being operated in ‘baseload’ mode. In the 2040s, when the first nuclear plants could begin operating, the Australian Energy Market Operator expects that over 90% of generation will be supplied by variable renewables (wind and solar), and that the average annual utilisation factor of gas generation assets will be between 3% and 15% to complement them. Our analysts estimate that at a utilisation factor below 25%, the cost for electricity supplied by an American SMR would increase to more than AUD 600/MWh, if it was even possible to achieve such a low utilisation operationally.
| Experts unite to condemn Coalition nuclear policy meltdownClimate Media CentreEnergy and health experts as well as affected regional and global communities have condemned reports today of the Coalition’s energy policy which includes large nuclear reactors to be sited on mothballed coal-fired power stations across regional Australia, as well as a plan to rip up Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement. The CSIRO’s recent GenCost report showed that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest and lowest-cost energy option is what we’re already building. Clean energy like solar and wind already makes up 40% of our national electricity grid, and one in three households have installed solar panels. Staying this course is the most responsible path toward slashing emissions this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To arrange interviews, please contact:Danielle Veldre +61 408972997 dan.veldre@climatemediacentre.org.auEmily Watkins +61 420622408 emily.watkins@climatemediacentre.org.au Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-AllianceAndrew has been working with regional communities hosting large scale renewable and transmission infrastructure for more than a decade. He can discuss the policy solutions that are needed to support regional communities to harness the benefits available in the shift to renewable energy.Location: Bungendore, NSW (near Canberra) “The Federal Coalition’s energy policy is a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments – the shift to a clean energy supply is already under way, with the latest data showing almost 40% of Australia’s electricity generation came from renewable energy sources in 2023. “Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel powered system for the next 20 years. Our current trajectory will see these ageing plants close progressively over the next ten years. “Renewable energy is here right now. Australians are increasingly using a cleaner and cheaper electricity supply, which we need to minimise the increasing impacts of climate change. Regional communities can greatly benefit from the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure – provided governments and industry are committed to sustained and significant investment in community engagement. “We need to stick to the plan but shift our focus to ensure regional communities get the benefits they deserve from the roll-out.” IEEFA Australia CEO, Amandine Denis Ryan, said: “The research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons – timing, cost, compatibility with renewables and liability issues to cite just a few.” “Our research shows that nuclear reactors – both small modular reactors (SMRs) and gigawatt-scale reactors – in comparable countries have consistently taken longer and have been more expensive to build than expected. With over 50 years experience in this space, our analysts have researched nuclear projects around the world. For a country like Australia, starting from scratch, we expect that nuclear power reactors would not reach commercial operation before the 2040s, would come at a high cost, and require substantial government support. “Nuclear plants in Australia cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s fleet of coal power stations, more than 90% of which are expected to retire in the next 10 years. Our research aligns with CSIRO and the regulators’ assessment that it would take at least 15 years to first production. The few existing SMRs in operation took over 12 years to build, despite original construction schedules of three to four years. Large reactors have a history of long delays, with most recent projects taking nine years or more from the first concrete pour, which in turn can only take place after years of planning, contracting and pre-construction works. This is in addition to the time required to develop the regulatory regime. “Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Our analysts found that SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years. Large-scale reactors often face cost overruns as well. The Flamanville EPR in France is an extreme example of this, with costs having more than quadrupled despite France’s deep expertise on nuclear. “Nuclear plants are not a good complement for renewable generation. They can be flexible within a range, however the economics rely upon being operated in ‘baseload’ mode. In the 2040s, when the first nuclear plants could begin operating, the Australian Energy Market Operator expects that over 90% of generation will be supplied by variable renewables (wind and solar), and that the average annual utilisation factor of gas generation assets will be between 3% and 15% to complement them. Our analysts estimate that at a utilisation factor below 25%, the cost for electricity supplied by an American SMR would increase to more than AUD 600/MWh, if it was even possible to achieve such a low utilisation operationally. “One of the major risks for investors in nuclear assets is the size and allocation of liability in case of an accident, with international conventions stating that operators of nuclear installations are liable should an incident occur. Such liabilities are very challenging for a company to carry by itself. In the United States, this issue was addressed with the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) by creating a shared insurance pool, now totalling AUD 22.5 billion across the almost 100 reactors covered. The US Government is exposed to costs beyond the insurance pool. Full costs associated with the 2011 Fukushima disaster could be as high as AUD 770 billion. It is unclear how Australia would be able to manage these liabilities without very material government underwriting of risk.” |
Mia Pepper, Campaign Director at the Conservation Council of WA said: “The Coalition’s nuclear power plans reported today are a clear plan to distract and delay from real action on climate change.
“Nuclear power is expensive, slow and dangerous and simply cannot deliver the energy needed in the time frame we have to decarbonise.
“WA is currently exiting coal and well advanced on the transition to cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives like renewables. It makes no economic, environmental or energy sense to change direction now.
“The WA Liberals have already ruled out nuclear power for WA, saying it is too expensive and doesn’t make sense for WAs grid. Peter Dutton’s irresponsible reactor plan has failed to convince his own party – and it certainly hasn’t and won’t convince the wider WA community. The Liberal party energy policy is nothing more than a dangerous distraction and delay from the much needed transition out of fossil fuels.”
“Nuclear is thirsty, requiring huge volumes of water for cooling, in an uncertain climate future nuclear also becomes one of the most dangerous and unreliable forms of energy we have seen these issues emerge in nuclear powered countries like France.
There remain significant and unresolved issues with the management of High-Level nuclear waste, insurmountable issues with security, and deep connections to the production of weapons grade materials. The risks of things going wrong are catastrophic.”
Masayoshi Iyoda – 350.org Japan Campaigner, said: “You cannot call nuclear clean energy, and completely ignore the voices of the victims of nuclear disasters and the burden on future generations. Nuclear is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming. We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
Joseph Sikulu – 350.org Pacific Managing Director said: “The legacy of nuclear power in the Asia Pacific region is a harmful one, as is the legacy of climate-destroying fossil fuels. The possibility of Australia venturing into nuclear is dangerous and concerning, and a distraction from what we should really be focused on – the just transition to renewable energy.”
Dutton spruiks gas and nuclear to win back Victoria
Gus McCubbing, AFR, Jun 7, 2024
“……………………… During a wide-ranging speech in which he spruiked the safety credentials of nuclear small modular reactors, attacked former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and the Suburban Rail Loop, and claimed that teal MPs are Greens in disguise, Mr Dutton on Friday told a Melbourne business lunch the Liberals were “back in town”.
……………………………………. Mr Dutton said Australia must embrace next-generation nuclear technologies as part of its energy mix to achieve cheaper, consistent and cleaner power, despite the CSIRO last month warning the first large-scale nuclear power plant could cost as much as $17 billion in today’s dollars, and would not be operational until at least 2040.
He claimed that a 470-megawatt small modular reactor produces waste the size of a Coca-Cola can each year, with zero emissions…………….
COMMENT. While the toxic radioactive residue from small nuclear reactors IS small in volume – it is so highly toxic that it requires larger space between used fuel rods in disposal – so ending up with an equally dangerous waste problem.
When asked why his former government never moved to roll out nuclear energy during its nine years in office, Mr Dutton said there was no political appetite before AUKUS.
“I don’t think it would have been possible for us to adopt the position that we have if the Labor Party hadn’t signed up to nuclear [powered] submarines,” Mr Dutton said… https://www.afr.com/politics/dutton-spruiks-gas-and-nuclear-to-win-back-victoria-20240605-p5jjcl
If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station?
Guardian, Gabrielle Chan, 4 June 24
The Coalition’s energy policy is leveraged on regional discontent about renewables. But many farmers don’t want nuclear in their back yard either.
Here’s the thing about the Coalition’s latest nuclear policy. It tries to use one of the most contentious issues in rural areas, which is the rollout of renewables and the electricity transmission lines to carry energy around the country, to push an even more controversial energy transition.
Because nuclear power stations would also be built in the regions. And if you’re worried about renewables, hands up who wants a nuclear reactor next door?
My generation grew up with the US-Russian cold war and the Doomsday Clock.
While the conversation and the technology of nuclear energy has moved on, the cost, complexity and construction time has not, as the CSIRO found in a report released last month………………………
If there is one thing that I have learned from calling a country town home, it is that people are very attached to their place and how it is identified.
Not everyone opposes renewables but there is a significant portion of people who don’t want them in their own back yard. Others are quietly making their fortunes, having struck the formula for drought-proofing their businesses for decades to come. If the Big Dry strikes, you will probably find them on a beach somewhere.
That is because annual payments to host turbines start from $40,000 each though I know of agreements that are much higher, especially when communities collectively bargain. The New South Wales government pays landowners $200,000 to host transmission lines in annual instalments over 20 years, with Victoria paying the same over 25 years.
Those payments have crept up because of ongoing regional protests. That action has been amplified by poor community consultation from some energy companies highlighted in the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer’s report. He found the rollout had created “material distrust” of developers in some communities.
Discontent is also being amplified for political purposes, including by David Littleproud, Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan, who spoke at a rally against renewables at parliament house.
The politics is clear. For starters, the long lead time kicks the nuclear energy can down the road to 2040. The Liberals cannot walk naked into the next election without at least a fig leaf for a net zero policy. The Nationals, on the other hand, don’t give a toss about net zero. They just want to extract the funding from the Liberals in compensation for hosting any technology that delivers on the net zero promise. Nuclear can be that fig leaf.
It is also true the Nats and the country Liberals will have to wear any pushback on where nuclear facilities are placed. They won’t be able to campaign against their own policy like some do on renewables.
Peter Dutton has not, as yet, specifically named any potential sites for a nuclear power station but he has pointed to current coal production facilities that are due to close. His announcement is imminent, perhaps even after the party room meeting on Tuesday.
Possible sites include the Hunter Valley in NSW; Anglesea and Latrobe Valley in Victoria; Port Augusta in South Australia; Collie in Western Australia; and perhaps Tarong in central Queensland – within Littleproud’s Maranoa electorate.
Since then the game has begun to get Coalition MPs to commit to host or rule out a reactor in their own back yard.
This is a bit silly really, because apart from the ACT, which renewable-supporting metropolitan MPs could commit to hosting a wind turbine or a solar farm in their city seats?
Littleproud and Joyce have both indicated their approval to host a reactor. But a dozen others would not commit when asked by Nine newspapers.
Keith Pitt told Nine he supported lifting the moratorium on nuclear power but, alas, there were technical restrictions, including earthquakes in his electorate. But if Pitt is worried about his area, other MPs might be scurrying to the Geoscience Australia map of faultlines for their own get-out-of-jail-free card.
Pitt’s seat of Hinkler looks like a shoo-in compared to the faultlines under Darren Chester’s Gippsland electorate, which covers the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, or the Liberal MP Rick Wilson’s seat of O’Connor, which covers Collie in WA…………………………………………..
Once you combine the feelings of the existing populations with younger populations, does that add up to support for nuclear over renewables in these changing back yards? I wouldn’t bet on it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/04/liberal-coalition-nuclear-power-plant-policy-renewable-energy
“We haven’t been consulted:” Coal town on transition to renewables is not interested in nuclear
ReNewEconomy, Aaron Bunch, Jun 2, 2024
A Western Australian coal town lined up as a potential site for a nuclear power station by the federal Coalition says the plan is a distraction as it works to ditch fossil fuels and transition to renewables and storage.
The federal coalition has floated plans to add nuclear energy to the power grid should it win government by building reactors at sites currently home to either coal or gas-fired power stations.
The sites have not yet been announced but the list is widely reported to include Collie, 200km south of Perth and home to about 7500 people, where a state government-supported pivot away from the coal industry is underway. It is the site for two of the country’s biggest battery storage projects.
Shire President Ian Miffling said the state $662 million Just Transition plan had created a “buzz” in the town and the federal coalition’s nuclear power plan hadn’t received much attention.
“Collie hasn’t been consulted at all and we don’t know any of the details of the policy and what they propose, so we’ve not given it too much credence at this stage,” he told AAP…………………
Mr Miffling said locals were focused on bolstering their skills for jobs in new industries, like the recently approved green steel mill and Synergy’s $1.6 billion battery to store renewable energy once coal is retired as an energy supply in 2030.
“The potential for nuclear, which would be a long way down the track, is a bit of a distraction and it really doesn’t need us to spend too much time talking about it at this point,” he said………………..
Local state Labor MP Jodie Hanns said federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and the coalition were out of touch with what was happening on the ground in Collie and floating plans for a reactor in the town was “arrogant and disrespectful”……………………….
“No one I’ve spoken to is in support of a nuclear reactor being put in Collie … my house will be up for sale if this becomes a reality.”
AMWU state secretary Steve McCartney said Collie workers had been discussing for years what they wanted for the town after coal mining ended, “and I can guarantee you one of the things wasn’t a nuclear power station”…………… https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-havent-been-consulted-coal-town-on-transition-to-renewables-is-not-interested-in-nuclear
Summary of Australian federal and state/territory nuclear/uranium laws and prohibitions.
Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick guide
From Jim Green, 30 May 2024
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2324/Quick_Guides/NuclearActivitiesProhibitions
PDF Version [564KB]
Dr Emily Gibson
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources; Law and Bills Digest Sections
This quick guide provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under Commonwealth, state and territory laws. It considers the primary legislation most relevant to current policy debates about domestic nuclear energy only and consequently does not consider recent changes to Commonwealth law to facilitate Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.[1] It also does not include consideration of Australia’s international obligations in respect of nuclear activities, including the safeguarding of nuclear materials and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
If a domestic nuclear energy industry were to progress, it is expected that a comprehensive framework for the safety, security and safeguarding of the related nuclear material would need to be legislated to accommodate such an industry.[2] Consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.
What are nuclear activities?
A nuclear activity is any process or step in the utilisation of material capable of undergoing nuclear fission; that is, any activities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[3] Nuclear activities therefore include:
- mining of nuclear or radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium milling, refining, treatment, processing, reprocessing, fabrication or enrichment of nuclear material
- the production of nuclear energy
- the construction, operation or decommissioning of a mine, plant, facility, structure, apparatus or equipment used in the above activities
- the use, storage, handling, transportation, possession, acquisition, abandonment or disposal of nuclear materials, apparatus or equipment.
Prohibitions on nuclear activities
Commonwealth
Nuclear activities are regulated under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
The ARPANS Act establishes a licensing framework for controlled persons (including a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth contractor) in relation to controlled facilities (a nuclear installation, a prescribed radiation facility, or a prescribed legacy site).[4] A nuclear installation includes a nuclear reactor for research or the production of radioactive materials for industrial or medical use, and a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018.[5]
The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7]
However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The EPBC Act establishes 9 matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and provides for the assessment and approval of these actions if the action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the MNES.[9] ‘Nuclear actions’ are one of the MNES.[10] Where a nuclear action is determined to be a controlled action (that is, one likely to have a significant impact and requiring assessment and approval under the Act), the assessment considers the impact of a nuclear action on the environment generally (including people and communities).[11]
The Act establishes offences for the taking of nuclear actions in those circumstances.[14]
Similarly, the Act provides that a relevant entity (as set out below) must not take an action (including a nuclear action) unless a requisite approval has been obtained under Part 9 of the Act or a relevant exception applies:
- a person must not take a relevant action on Commonwealth land that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment[15]
- a person must not take a relevant action outside Commonwealth land if the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land[16]
- the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not take inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction.[17]
The Act establishes offences and civil penalty provisions for the taking of an action in those circumstances.[18]
Subsection 140A(1) prohibits the Minister for the Environment from granting an approval for a nuclear action relating to specified nuclear installations. These installations are a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant, and a reprocessing facility.
Potential reform of the nuclear action trigger
The second independent review of the EPBC Act, completed in October 2020 by Professor Graeme Samuel (Samuel Review), recommended that the nuclear actions MNES be retained.[19] The review recommended that ‘the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements of [ARPANSA] should be aligned, to support the implementation of best-practice international approaches based on risk of harm to the environment, including the community’.[20]
In 2022, the Government’s Nature Positive Plan adopted this approach and stated, ‘[a] uniform national approach to regulation of radiation will be delivered through the new National Environmental Standards’.
In February 2024, a policy draft of the National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance indicates that ‘nuclear actions’ will be renamed ‘radiological exposure actions’ and states:
Relevant decisions must:
Not be inconsistent with the ARPANSA national codesfor protection from radiological exposure actions including in relation to:
- human health and environmental risks and outcomes; and. radiological impacts on biological diversity,
- the conservation of species and the natural health of ecosystems.[22]
States and territories
States and territories generally regulate nuclear and radiation activities through either the health or the environmental protection portfolios. The relevant legislation provides for the protection of health and safety of people, and the protection of property and the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation by establishing licensing regimes to regulate the possession, use, and transportation of radiation sources and substances.[23] Mining of radioactive materials is regulated through the resources portfolio.
In addition, as outlined below, the states and territories have legislation prohibiting certain nuclear activities or the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities. Importantly, where permitted, nuclear activities (including mining) would also be subject to assessment and approvals under a range of other legislation, including planning and environmental impact assessment, native title and cultural heritage, and radiation licensing laws at the state or territory and Commonwealth level.
New South Wales
Exploration for uranium has been permitted under the Mining Act 1992 since 2012.[24] However, the mining of uranium is prohibited by the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 (NSW Prohibitions Act).[25]
The NSW Prohibitions Act also prohibits the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment facilities, fabrication and reprocessing plants, nuclear power plants, and storage and waste disposal facilities (other than for the storage and disposal of waste from research or medical purposes, or the relevant radiological licensing Act).[26]
Northern Territory
The Atomic Energy Act 1953 (Cth) provides that the Commonwealth owns all uranium found in the territories.[27] Uranium exploration and mining in the Northern Territory (NT) is regulated under both NT mining laws (the Mineral Titles Act 2010 and the Mining Management Act 2001) and the Atomic Energy Act.[28] The Ranger Uranium Mine operated until 2021 and is now undergoing rehabilitation.[29]
The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT.[30] Nuclear waste is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.[31]
This Act also:
- prohibits public funds from being expended, granted or advanced to any person for, or for encouraging or financing any activity associated with the development, construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility
- would require the NT Parliament to hold an inquiry into the likely impact of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed by the Commonwealth on the cultural, environmental and socio‑economic wellbeing of the territory.[32]
Queensland
Exploration for and mining of uranium are permitted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. However, it has been government policy to not grant mining leases for uranium since 2015.[33] The government policy ban extends to the treatment or processing of uranium within the state.[34]
The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007, in similar terms to the NSW Prohibitions Act, prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[35]
Unlike other state and territory prohibition legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act would require the responsible Queensland Minister to hold a plebiscite to gain the views of the Queensland population if the Minister was satisfied that the Commonwealth Government has taken, or is likely to take, steps to amend a Commonwealth law or exercise a power under a Commonwealth law to facilitate the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility, or if the Commonwealth Government adopts a policy position of supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.[36]
South Australia
The exploration and mining of radioactive material (including uranium) is permitted in South Australia (SA), subject to approvals under the Mining Act 1971 and the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 (RP&C Act).[37] For example, uranium is mined at Olympic Dam, Four Mile and Honeymoon. However, conversion and enrichment activities are prohibited by the RP&C Act.[38]
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 prohibits the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility.[39]
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facilities.[40] The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised under a Commonwealth law.[41]
Tasmania
The exploration and mining of atomic substances (which includes uranium and thorium) is permitted under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (Tas), subject to approval.
Victoria
The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits a range of activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including the exploration and mining of uranium and thorium, and the construction or operation of facilities for the conversion or enrichment of any nuclear material, nuclear reactors and facilities for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from those prohibited activities.[42]
Western Australia
Exploration for and mining of uranium is permitted under the Mining Act 1978. A state policy ban on mining approvals was overturned in November 2008;[43] however, this was reinstated in June 2017, with a ‘no uranium’ condition on future mining leases.[44] The ban does not apply to 4 projects that had already been approved by the previous government.
The Nuclear Activities Regulation Act 1978 aims to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from possible harmful effects of nuclear activities, including by regulating the mining and processing of uranium and the equipment used in those processes. The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 also prohibits the storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste (including waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons).[45]
Can the Commonwealth override a state ban on nuclear activities?
The Commonwealth Parliament only has the power to make laws in relation to matters specified in the Constitution of Australia, including in sections 51, 52 and 122. Assuming the Commonwealth has a sufficient head of power to legislate, section 109 of the Constitution specifically provides for circumstances in which there might be an inconsistency between Commonwealth and state laws:
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Therefore, even though some states have enacted prohibitions on certain nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, the Commonwealth Parliament could enact specific legislation in relation to nuclear activities so that such activities can take place within those jurisdictions. One such example is the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth), which provides for the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility at a site to be declared by the responsible Commonwealth Minister. Section 12 of that Act provides that state and territory laws have no effect in regulating, hindering, or preventing such a facility
Further information
- ‘Who we regulate’, ARPANSA
- ‘State & territory regulators’, ARPANSA
- ‘Uranium and thorium’, in Geoscience Australia, Australia’s Energy Commodity Resources, 2023 Edition, (Canberra: Geoscience Australia, 2023).
Do young people support nuclear power?
Jim Green 31 May 24
Earlier this year the Murdoch-Coalition echo-chamber was excited about younger poll respondents in a February Newspoll survey ‒ 65 percent support and 32 percent opposition among 18 to 34-year-olds to this survey question: ‘There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?’
However the Newspoll survey was a crude example of push-polling as discussed by polling experts Kevin Bonham and Murray Goot and by economist Professor John Quiggin. The question was loaded, the response options were mischievous (excluding a “neither approve nor disapprove” option, without which majority support (across all age groups) almost certainly would not have been achieved), and the Murdoch/Sky reporting on the poll was biased and dishonest.
Moreover, as Murray Goot notes, other polls reach different conclusions:
“But eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds as the age group most favourably disposed to nuclear power is not what Essential shows, not what Savanta shows, and not what RedBridge shows.
“In October’s Essential poll, no more than 46 per cent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-four supported “nuclear power plants” — the same proportion as those aged thirty-six to fifty-four but a smaller proportion than those aged fifty-five-plus (56 per cent); the proportion of “strong” supporters was actually lower among those aged eighteen to thirty-four than in either of the other age-groups.
“In the Savanta survey, those aged eighteen to thirty-four were the least likely to favour nuclear energy; only about 36 per cent were in favour, strongly or otherwise, not much more than half the number that Newspoll reported.
“And according to a report of the polling conducted in February by RedBridge, sourced to Tony Barry, a partner and former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, “[w]here there is support” for nuclear power “it is among only those who already vote Liberal or who are older than 65”.”
CSIRO stands by nuclear power costings that contradict Coalition claims
The Coalition has attacked the GenCost report that found nuclear power plants would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind
Graham Readfearn, 29 May 24, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/29/csiro-nuclear-power-plant-australia-cost-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition
The CSIRO says it stands by its analysis on the costs of future nuclear power plants in Australia after the Coalition attacked the work, which contradicted its claims reactors would provide cheap electricity and be available within a decade.
The opposition’s energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, claimed on Tuesday in the Australian newspaper that the CSIRO should re-run its modelling to account for longer life-spans and running times of nuclear generators in other countries with nuclear programs.
Last week the CSIRO released its GenCost report on the costs of different generation technologies, saying nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind and would not be available any sooner than 2040.
The Coalition has yet to reveal any detail on its nuclear plan, including what type of reactors it would build, how large they would be and where they would put them.
A CSIRO spokesperson told Guardian Australia: “CSIRO provides impartial and independent advice and does not undertake modelling for specific policy directions.
“While we stand by the data provided, any alternative scenarios assessed by others would not carry CSIRO’s endorsement.”
O’Brien pointed to an assumption used in the GenCost report that nuclear plants would have a “capacity factor” – how often they are generating electricity relative to their maximum capacity – of between 53% and 89%.
O’Brien wanted the CSIRO to use a higher figure of 92.7% for nuclear based on the performance of plants in the US.
But the GenCost report discusses the reasons for setting capacity factors, saying new baseload generators such as nuclear “are expected to struggle to present the lowest cost bids to the dispatch market” and would, therefore, likely be generating less often.
O’Brien also wanted the CSIRO to model the full lifespan of nuclear plants – which could be as long as 80 years – and to add a start date of 2035 to its modelling.
The report provides cost estimates for power from different generation technologies, including both large and small reactors, for the years 2023, 2030 and 2040.
The CSIRO spokesperson said: “Specific issues in regard to economic life of generation assets and capacity utilisation, including large scale nuclear, have been assessed by the GenCost team as part of the consultation process for the 2023-24 report.”
Australia has never built a nuclear reactor for electricity and the technology has been banned since 1998.
The CSIRO report said if a decision was made in 2025 to adopt nuclear power, it would be at least 15 years until a reactor was producing power.
The report said: “Nuclear technologies need to undergo more extensive safety and security permitting, nuclear prohibitions need to be removed at the state and commonwealth level and the safety authorities need to be established.”
The report estimated if Australia could establish a nuclear industry, then a 1,000MW plant would cost $8.6bn, but the first reactors could cost double that amount – more than $17bn.
The report said: “Given the lack of a development pipeline and the additional legal and safety and security steps required, the first nuclear plant in Australia will be significantly delayed. Subsequent nuclear plant could be built more quickly as part of a pipeline of plants.”
Among opposition leaders, Peter Dutton is a miracle survival story. But is he about to nuke himself with women voters?
ABC, By Annabel Crabb 29 May 24
Peter Dutton is a freak of nature. Politically, that is…………………………………
Two years in, Dutton is not only still in office, but nobody inside his own party — or even in the National Party — is trying to blow him out of it. It is a truly extraordinary achievement.
His public popularity remains firmly in negative territory, according to Newspoll. So why isn’t this translating into the customary seasonal orgy of backstabbing?
Two reasons.
The first is that there really isn’t, ahem, any alternative……………………………………………………………………………….
Dutton much a much more dangerous opponent for Anthony Albanese than is commonly assumed.
But there is one risk associated with this unseasonably warm bath of internal approbation……………………..his decision to pursue nuclear energy as a principal policy decision is a high-risk call, as a new piece of research — supplied to the ABC — makes clear……………………
When it comes to nuclear, public opinion divides along gender lines
Over recent weeks, the RedBridge Group conducted a survey of around 2,000 Australian voters, seeking their views on various issues including nuclear energy. Respondents were asked whether they would support or oppose an Australian government lifting the ban on nuclear power so private investors could build nuclear power plants here.
The responses, across all voters, were kind of evenly divided. Strong supporters constituted 17 per cent, another 17 said they were supportive, 19 per cent were “neither”, 15 per cent were opposed, 20 per cent strongly opposed, and 12 per cent were unsure. This shakes out to an extremely slender net negative of-1
But the truly fascinating detail in the survey comes when you dig down into who especially loves the idea of nuclear, and who hates it.
And the biggest difference of opinion on nuclear, it turns out, breaks along gender lines……………….
Women disapproved of nuclear power strongly – just 7 per cent strongly agreed a ban should be lifted, compared with 24 per cent of male respondents. That’s a net negative of -29 for women, and net positive of 26 for men.
The only demographics showing real enthusiasm for nuclear power were Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 a week, and those who own their own home. In each of these instances, every other group was majority opposed.
In other words, every other party’s voters apart from the Coalition’s registered a net negative, as well as every other age bracket apart from the most elderly, and all other income brackets apart from the top one.
Renters and mortgage holders alike disapproved on the whole. Among those who described themselves as under “a great deal of financial stress”, the feeling on nuclear ran at negative 15. Among those under “no stress at all”, however, the reception was much warmer – positive 19…………………………………………………………………………….
And in the two years that have elapsed since female voters demonstrated their annoyance at being ignored and talked down to, the Liberal Party has failed to do anything about its structural under-representation of women in parliament, …………………………………………………………..
There always seems to be an abundance of reasons to get rid of women; almost as many reasons as traditionally abound for holding on to and even promoting male duds. Women do notice this stuff.
And “Never mind ladies, have a nuclear power plant” may not be a very compelling change of subject. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-29/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-policy-may-risk-alienating-women/103870338
Nuclear will cost Queensland jobs
JOINT STATEMENT Premier The Honourable Steven Miles, Minister for Energy and Clean Economy Jobs, The Honourable Mick de Brenni, 13 May, 2024 https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/100305
- The LNP backed “Nuclear for Climate Australia” has identified multiple sites in North Queensland for nuclear reactors.
- This would see nuclear reactors in Townsville, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Brisbane Valley, Toowoomba, the Darling Downs and more.
- LNP going nuclear risks Copperstring jobs, critical minerals boom for Townsville to Mount Isa
- Labor backs clean and renewable energy not nuclear.
- The Miles Government is already delivering jobs and clean energy through the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan and development of the SuperGrid.
- Those jobs would be at risk with the LNP’s nuclear plans.
The Miles Government is focussing on clean energy jobs and has a working plan for a safe and responsible transition to renewable energy, that will protect existing jobs and create new ones.
Queenslanders from Townsville to Mt Isa are at the heart of Labor’s leading plan for a clean economy future.
Our plan to build CopperString will provide more than 800 jobs during construction and will unlock the $500 billion North West Minerals Province, by linking it with Hughenden and up to 6,000 MW of renewable energy.
This is the nation’s largest expansion to the power grid and it is paid for by progressive coal royalties.
By putting their fossil fuel friends before Queensland’s transition, the LNP is risking thousands of jobs and return to high unemployment.
The LNP’s nuclear option is an LNP recipe for a cost-of-living meltdown. Nuclear is the most expensive option. It is 5 times the price of renewables.
International examples show it will take around 19 years to build a nuclear power station.
This is decades too late for Townsville employers who need clean, affordable energy now to remain competitive.
Nuclear is neither clean nor renewable. And it’s illegal in both Queensland and Australia.
The LNP backed proposal targets nuclear power stations in Townsville, Gladstone, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Brisbane Valley, Ipswich, Darling Downs, the Western Downs, Rockhampton, and Callide.
Quotes attributable to Premier Steven Miles:
“The LNP are proposing nuclear reactors right across this state. Up to three near Townsville, while they have earmarked locations on the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Brisbane Valley and Ipswich.
“What we know about those nuclear reactors is that they will be much more expensive. As much as five times more expensive for your household power bills.
“We also know that as a result of those reactors, future generations of Queenslanders will have to manage nuclear waste forever.
“That’s the LNP’s plan. Higher prices and nuclear waste; putting our waterways, our environment and our beautiful state at risk.”
Quotes attributable to Energy Minister Mick de Brenni:
“Everyone from Townsville Enterprise to the Queensland Resources Council backs Labor’s plan on renewable energy, because Copperstring means jobs and long-term prosperity for the region.
“The only exception is the LNP, who voted in Parliament to oppose the Energy and Jobs Plan, because they are opposed to renewables and public ownership.
“It seems that everybody in Townsville wants local manufacturing and jobs here, except David Crisafulli, who will not stand up to Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien and actually back Townsville jobs.
“We know how risky and expensive nuclear is and we know David Crisafulli deserted North Queensland for the glitter strip on the Gold Coast, and now he’s setting Townsville up for an unemployment and cost of living meltdown.
“North Queensland already has the world’s best plan to protect local jobs through the transition, so why would the LNP turn its back on the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan and Copperstring, just so they can cosy up to their big donors?
“Labor is backing renewable energy because it protects jobs in North Queensland, from Townsville to Mt Isa and beyond, and Labor is not prepared to risk those jobs.”
Quotes attributable To Thuringowa MP Aaron Harper:
“I do not want to see a nuclear reactor in Townsville and anywhere near the banks of the much loved and well used Ross River.
“Nobody in Thuringowa and the Upper Ross will accept nuclear waste travelling down Riverway Drive.
“We know the LNP back nuclear energy and are against renewable energy.
“We know that David Crisafulli and the state LNP are too weak to stand up to Peter Dutton’s nuclear agenda.
“There are serious questions to answer from the LNP about their connections to Nuclear for Climate’s plan for nuclear power in Townsville.
“Peter Dutton and David Crisafulli’s nuclear agenda pose an unacceptable risk to Townsville.”
Background information:
- Nuclear for Climate Australia, which has the backing of the Coalition, has identified multiple sites in Queensland as ideal spots to host nuclear reactors.
- Nuclear power is currently illegal in Queensland.
- Miles Government is delivering cheaper, cleaner, reliable power to develop the North West Minerals Province.
- Nation’s largest expansion to the power grid – SuperGrid, not a MiniGrid.
- CopperString will connect nation’s largest renewable energy zone at Hughenden and power a critical minerals industry that will supply world’s transition
- CopperString will be 100% publicly owned
Fast Facts
- Nuclear power production is prohibited under two pieces of legislation:
- Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
- CSIRO estimate the capital cost of small modular reactors in 2030 to be $15,959/kW, compared to wind at $2105/kW and solar at $1134/kW.
Coalition’s brave nuke world a much harder sell after new CSIRO report
Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/26/coalitions-brave-nuke-world-a-much-harder-sell-after-new-csiro-report?CMP=soc_568
The agency’s GenCost analysis says a first nuclear plant for Australia would deliver power ‘no sooner than 2040’ and could cost more than $17bn
The Coalition’s pitch on nuclear energy for Australia has had two recurring themes: the electricity will be cheap and it could be deployed within a decade.
CSIRO’s latest GenCost report – a document that analyses the costs of a range of electricity generation technologies – contradicts both of these points. It makes the Coalition’s job of selling nuclear power plants to Australians ever more challenging.
For the first time, the national science agency has calculated the potential costs of large-scale nuclear electricity in a country that banned the generation technology more than a quarter of a century ago.
Even using a set of generous assumptions, the CSIRO says a first nuclear plant would deliver power “no sooner than 2040” and could cost more than $17bn.
It is likely to spark an attack on the credibility of the report from nuclear advocates and those opposed to the rollout of renewable energy. Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has already attacked the report.
In the meantime, Australia waits for the Coalition to say what kind of reactors it would deploy, where it would put them and how much it thinks they would cost.
Now that CSIRO has released its report, here’s what we know about the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia.
What’s new on nuclear costs?
CSIRO’s GenCost report says a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant would cost about $8.6bn to build, but that comes with some large caveats. The main one is that this was the theoretical cost of a reactor in an Australia that already had an established and continuous program of building reactors.
The $8.6bn is based on costs in South Korea, which does have a continuous reactor building program and is one country the least beset by cost blowouts.
To make the cost more relevant, CSIRO compared the Australian and South Korean costs of building modern coal plants. Costs were more than double in Australia.
But CSIRO warns the first nuclear plants in Australia would be subject to a “first of a kind” premium that could easily double the $8.6bn build cost.
In the UK, a country that has been building reactors intermittently, costs for its under-construction Hinkley C reactor (more than three times the size of a theoretical 1,000MW reactor in Australia) started at $34bn and could now be as high as $89bn.
In the United States, the country’s largest nuclear plant has just turned on its final unit seven years behind schedule and at double the initial cost. There are no more nuclear plants under construction in the country.
What about the cost of the electricity?
CSIRO also offers cost estimates for the electricity produced by large-scale reactors, but those too assume a continuous nuclear building program in Australia.
Electricity from large-scale reactors would cost between $141 per megawatt hour and $233/MWh if they were running in 2030, according to GenCost.
Combining solar and wind would provide power at between $73 and $128/MWh – figures that include the costs of integrating renewables, such as building transmission lines and energy storage.
What about those small modular reactors?
The Coalition has also advocated for so-called “small modular reactors” which are not commercially available and, CSIRO says, are unlikely to be available to build in Australia until 2040.
One United States SMR project lauded by the Coalition collapsed in late 2023 because the cost of the power was too high.
That project, CSIRO says, was significant because its design had nuclear commission approval and was “the only recent estimate from a real project that was preparing to raise finance for the construction stage. As such, its costs are considered more reliable than theoretical projects.”
GenCost reports that power from a theoretical SMR in 2030 would cost between $230 and $382/MWh – much higher than solar and wind or large-scale nuclear.
How quickly could Australia build a nuclear plant?
Nuclear advocates tend to point to low nuclear power costs in countries that have long-established nuclear industries.
Australia has no expertise in building nuclear power, no infrastructure, no regulatory agency, no nuclear workforce and a public that is yet to have a serious proposition put in front of it.
Australia’s electricity grid is fast evolving from one dominated by large coal-fired power plants to one engineered for and dominated by solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro with gas-fired power working as a rarely used backup.
This creates a major problem for the Coalition, because CSIRO estimates “if a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040.”
Tony Wood, head of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, says: “By 2040, the coal-fired power stations will be in their graves. What do you do in the meantime?”
“You could keep the coal running, but that would become very expensive,” he says, pointing to the ageing coal fleet that is increasingly beset by outages.
Wood says the GenCost report is only a part of the story when it comes to understanding nuclear.
The Coalition, he says, would need to explain how much it would cost to build an electricity system to accommodate nuclear.
Could you just drop nuclear into the grid?
The biggest piece of generation kit on Australia’s electricity grid is a single 750 megawatt coal-fired unit at Kogan Creek in Queensland. Other power stations are larger but they are made up of a series of smaller units.
But the smallest of the “large-scale” nuclear reactors are about 1,000MW and most are 1,400MW.
Electricity system engineers have to build-in contingency plans if large units either trip or have to be pulled offline for maintenance. That contingency costs money.
In Australia’s current electricity system, the GenCost report says larger nuclear plants would probably “require the deployment of more generation units in reserve than the existing system consisting of units of 750MW or less.”
But by the time a theoretical nuclear plant could be deployed, most if not all the larger coal-fired units will be gone.
Who might build Australian nukes?
Some energy experts have questioned whether any company would be willing to take up a contract to build a reactor in Australia when there are existing nuclear nations looking to expand their fleets.
Right now, nuclear reactors are banned federally and in several states.
The GenCost report also points to another potential cost-raiser for nuclear – a lack of political bipartisanship.
The report says: “Without bipartisan support, given the historical context of nuclear power in Australia, investors may have to consider the risk that development expenses become stranded by future governments.”
WA Liberals reject Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan
New Daily, AAP, May 26, 2024,
The Western Australia Liberal Party has poured cold water on the federal Coalition’s plan for nuclear power in the state, while backing coal to keep the lights on.
Energy spokesman Steve Thomas says federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power won’t work in WA.
“To get approvals and construction happening on a nuclear power plant, whatever the size is, is probably a 15-to-20-year timeframe,” he told reporters on Sunday.
“In the meantime, we have to keep the lights on we have to keep the air conditioners running and we have to do it at a cost that the community can afford.”
WA’s power system was small and a large cost-effective nuclear power plant wouldn’t work, Mr Thomas said.
“The size of the unit would matter significantly because as CSIRO has said, the small ones which will fit into our marketplace are more than two-to-three times as expensive per unit of electricity as the large ones,” he said.
“There might one day be room for a small one when the time is right and the business case steps up and the community accepts it.”
A CSIRO report released last week found building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would take 15 years, cost at least $8.5 billion and produce electricity about twice the cost of renewables.
Any nuclear plant in WA would need significant federal government investment and Mr Thomas said he was happy to look at Mr Dutton’s business case and continue talks.
“This is a long, ongoing discussion and we the state Liberals are not afraid of nuclear energy … but it has to stack up and it has to have support,” he said………………………………… https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2024/05/26/wa-liberals-reject-dutton-nuclear-plan
Peter Dutton to reveal nuclear power locations ‘soon’ amid energy debate
MY COMMENT on Dutton’s statement – He said the report was a blueprint for investors, and the Coalition was centring its nuclear policy around what would be best for consumers.
So Dutton thinks that if nuclear power is bad for investors, it would somehow be good for the public – “consumers”
Well, I guess that means that it would have to be paid for by tax-payers?
The backyards where the Coalition plans to build nuclear power plants will be announced “soon”, as Australia’s energy debate ramps up.
Ellen Ransley, May 23, 2024
Australians “won’t have to wait long” to find out if the Coalition plans to build a nuclear reactor in their backyard, with policy and possible locations to be announced soon.
The Coalition won’t be drawn on reports it is set to announce the locations of up to seven proposed power sites within weeks, which according to Nine Newspapers, could include sites in two Liberal-held seats and four or five Nationals-held seats.
They reportedly include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and potentially a plant in the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud.
All of those areas currently house coal or gas-fired power stations.
Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien wouldn’t comment directly on whether the opposition had those sites in its sights, offering instead a promise of an announcement “in due course”………………………..
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the Coalition’s plan was “still a fantasy
Why doesn’t Peter Dutton just front up and tell us. It was coming nine weeks ago!” she told Sky News.
“We need to know where they will go, how much they will cost, and when they will be released.”
Asked directly if Collie was a location, Mr Dutton said he hadn’t “ruled it out or in”.
“I’ve said that we’re looking at coal-fired power stations that are coming to an end of life,” he said.
Mr Dutton also dismissed the CSIRO’s annual GenCost report, after it found the country’s hypothetical first large-scale nuclear reactor could cost up to $17bn and take until 2040 to be built.
Moreover, the report found the cost of the electricity it would generate would be twice as much as that of renewables.
Mr Dutton said the report was “based on the current government settings, which are against the use of nuclear”, and said it didn’t consider what he claimed was a more than trillion dollar cost for the government’s renewables rollout.
Mr O’Brien said while some of the capital cost assumptions in the report were unproblematic, it was “hard to say exactly what the first plant would cost”.
He said the report was a blueprint for investors, and the Coalition was centring its nuclear policy around what would be best for consumers.
“Once you have nuclear in the mix, prices come down,” he said.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, meanwhile, said the CSIRO report “torpedoes” Mr Dutton’s nuclear “fantasy”.
“I think the CSIRO has completely torpedoed this uncosted nuclear fantasy of Peter Dutton’s,” he said.
“The madness of this I think is laid bare in the CSIRO report for Australia we have immense opportunity in the renewable sector as the world transitions to net zero.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/22/australia-nuclear-power-plants-csiro-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-plan
Renewables and storage still cheapest option, nuclear too slow and costly in Australia – CSIRO
Giles Parkinson, May 22, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-and-storage-still-cheapest-option-nuclear-too-slow-and-costly-in-australia-csiro/
Australia’s main scientific body, the CSIRO, has reaffirmed its assessment that integrated renewable energy is by far the cheapest option for Australia, and that nuclear – be it large scale or small modular reactors – is too slow and too costly.
The CSIRO’s findings have been consistent since the first of its now annual GenCost reports was released under the then Coalition government in 2018. In fact the gap between renewables and nuclear has widened, despite the addition of integration and transmission costs to wind and solar, even with up to a 90 per cent renewable share.
Its draft report released late last year re-affirmed that nuclear – the chosen technology of new Coalition leader Peter Dutton and his energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, remained by far the costliest energy choice for Australia.
Dutton is digging in on nuclear, and amid furious attacks from right wing media and so-called think tanks, the Coalition has tried to discredit the CSIRO GenCost report, which is produced in conjunction with energy experts at the Australian Energy Market Operator.
The nuclear boosters were particularly frustrated by the CSIRO’s costings on SMR (small modular reactors), which was based on the NuScale project in the US, the only SMR in the western world to get close to construction, but which was abandoned because of soaring costs that caused its customers to withdraw their support.
The nuclear boosters, and the federal Coalition, want the CSIRO and AEMO to accept the cost forecasts from salesmen for SMR technologies that remain largely on the drawing board and which – unlike the failed NuScale project – have no real world verification.
The CSIRO has now released its final GenCost report, prepared in conjunction with AEMO, and which it describes as the most comprehensive assessment of generation costs ever produced in this country.
The CSIRO has bent over backwards to respond to the criticism from the nuclear lobby, and added an estimated cost in Australia for large scale nuclear. It says is not as pricy as SMR technology, but is still at least double the cost of integrated renewables, and wouldn’t be possible before 2040 even if a commitment was made now.
That’s important, because Australia is the midst of a renewable energy transition that aims for an 82 per cent renewable energy share by 2030. Climate science dictates that speed of emissions cuts is now critically important, and by 2040 the country should be at or close to 100 per cent renewables.
The addition of large scale nuclear was one of a number of changes to the GenCost report from its 2023 edition, including a return to calculations for solar thermal, a technology hoping for its own renaissance, the inclusion of spilled energy from wind and solar, and – in response to more feedback – including integration costs incurred before 2030.
It doesn’t change the picture that much. Wind and solar are still by far the cheapest, in 2023 and in 2030, even though an expected cost reduction for wind energy – whose prices spiked after the Covid pandemic and energy crisis – is now not expected to take much longer until the mid 2030s.
Solar costs, however, are still falling, and it’s important to note that renewable integration costs for 80 per cent renewables in 2030 are less than $100/MWh. Even assuming the money is spent now, before expected cost reductions, the cost for an 80 per cent wind and solar grid in 2023 is put at $120/MWh.
Compare that to the estimated costs for nuclear, which in terms of the political and public debate, are the most revealing, and just a little inconvenient for the Coalition, whose attacks on the CSIRO and AEMO ignore the fact that the same conclusions were reached under its own governance.
The final GenCost report highlights how the favoured technologies of the conservatives – be they nuclear, gas, gas with CCS and coal with CCS – are so much higher than solar and wind with firming. SMRs are four to six times the cost of integrated renewables, and the first projects are likely to be significantly higher.
Large scale nuclear is twice as expensive, again without considering the first of its kind costs which would be necessary in Australia, and without considering the considerable costs of added reserve capacity needed because the plants are so big.
It also does not take into account how nuclear, with its “always on” business model could fit into a future grid already dominated by renewables and needing flexible capacity to support it, not redundant baseload.
Even with the full integrated costs itemised for both the 2023 and the 2030 assessments, the difference is clear.
CSIRO says that its draft GenCost received more submissions than any previous edition, with most of the 45 submissions coming from individuals who support nuclear.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Australian energy industry is the slightest bit interested in the technology, because of its costs and the timelines. As US energy expert Amory Lovins wrote for Renew Economy this week, nuclear “has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.”
Indeed, two of the most prominent public faces of the pro-nuclear campaign in Australia have been a school student and an emergency doctor from Ontario, who have both received remarkable amounts of publicity in mainstream media despite their lack of industry knowledge.
The CSIRO points out that the large scale nuclear costs are at best estimates, because there is no nuclear industry in Australia, and no regulatory framework. First of its kind developments are likely to be exorbitant, but even basing its estimates on the South Korea experience puts the costs of large scale nuclear at a multiple of renewables.
The nuclear lobby has been insistent that wind and solar costs need to factor in the integration costs of the technologies in the grid, including storage and transmission, so no doubt they will insist that the CSIRO now does the same with large scale nuclear.
It is not likely to be cheap. As CSIRO notes, large scale nuclear units normally ranges in size from 1 GW to 1.4 GW or more, far bigger than the biggest coal unit in Australia, which is 750 MW. That will require added reserve capacity of equivalent size in case of an unexpected outage or unplanned maintenance.
In the UK, the regulator estimated that the additional reserve capacity of the Hinkley C nuclear plant would be in the order of $12 billion, on top of the now blown out costs of up to $92 billion for that reactor.
The project that had promised to be “cooking turkeys” by 2017, looks to be a cooked turkey itself by the time it gets switched on in 2031.
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen said the GenCost report validated the Labor government’s focus on renewables, and underlined the risky nature of the Coalition’s “half-baked” goal of keeping ageing coal fired power plants operating until nuclear can be delivered in the 2040s.
“Were small modular nuclear reactors able to be up and running in Australia by 2030, which they aren’t, the ‘first of a kind’ scenario is a cost of between $294/MWh and $764/MWh,” Bowen said. “Meaning small modular nuclear reactors would be up to more than nine times more expensive than firmed large-scale wind and solar.
“We know that Australia has the best solar resources in the world, and today’s report shows large-scale solar alone is 8 per cent cheaper to build than a year ago,” he said.
“We know Australia doesn’t have that time (to wait for nuclear) – 24 coal plants announced their closure dates under the previous government, and 90% of Australia’s coal-fired power is forecast to close by 2035.”
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.
Nuclear more than 6 times the cost of renewables – report
20 May 2024, https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/nuclear-more-than-6-times-the-cost-of-renewables-report
An independent report by consulting and engineering firm Egis and commissioned by the Clean Energy Council has confirmed that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy in Australia.
The review analysed the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s GenCost report against the Lazard Review and the Mineral Council of Australia (MCA)’s research into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.
The report found that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, and that renewables remained the cheapest form of new-build electricity.
Nuclear may be even higher cost than forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants had been omitted in cost calculations.
The report also found:
- The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia
- And the economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid.
“Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.”
Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Kane Thornton, said households would need to pay a hefty price to subsidise nuclear reactors.
Thornton said: “Taxpayers also need to understand the costs that will be borne if they are forced to foot the bill for building a nuclear industry from scratch over a period of decades.
“Nuclear power is also a poor fit with our increasingly renewable power system.
“Nuclear power stations are expensive and have to run constantly in order to break even – but that doesn’t work in a world with an abundance of cheap renewables.”
The Egis report also found the MCA’s research on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) did not anticipate the current long delay in SMR projects around the world.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 