Today Leader of the Liberal Party announced a future Coalition Government would support development of nuclear power in Australia naming seven sites and saying they would have the first 2 sites operating by 2035-37. This follows statements that the Coalition did not support the legislated 43 percent emissions reduction target by 2030, yet refused to announce what target the Coalition parties would support.

Action: Speak out for a nuclear free future. Sign the petition today.

The Federal Coalition’s announcement is a nuclear fantasy, lacking in detail, costs and substance, and is a dangerous distraction. Peter Dutton is abandoning Australians to the worst impacts of climate change with no plan to keep us safe. Climate disasters such as the 2019/20 bushfires and 2022 floods are escalating and the fantasy of nuclear power for Australia will delay decarbonisation for at least 20 years or more, and will come at a huge opportunity cost for energy transition and cost of energy.

The nuclear power sites proposed include at Loy Yang in the La Trobe Valley in Victoria, Callide west of Gladstone and Tarong north-west of Brisbane in Central Queensland, Liddell in the Hunter Valley and Mount Piper near Lithgow in New South Wales, Port Augusta in South Australia, and Muja near Collie in Western Australia.

The sites are mostly in Coalition-held electorates: Colin Boyce’s seat of Flynn, the Nationals leader David Littleproud’s seat of Maranoa both in Queensland; Rick Wilson’s seat of O’Connor in W.A; and Rowan Ramsey’s seat of Grey in S.A. In New South Wales Liddell is in Labor MP Dan Repacholi’s seat of Hunter. Mount Piper is in National turned independent MP Andrew Gee’s electorate of Calare. In Victoria the site is Loy Yang in Nationals MP Darren Chester’s seat of Gippsland.

If the capital costs of building Nuclear power are passed on, and we also continue to use coal and ramp up gas use, the energy costs of electricity to consumers will continue to increase, affecting the Cost of living for decades hence. For renewables, once the capital costs of building renewables and transmission occurr, the fuel is free and energy costs will be minimised.

Peter Dutton failed to release costings, or emissions modelling, or background research to justify establishing a nuclear power industry. The proposal entails the government owning the power stations.

Amy Remeikis covered the Coalition press conference for The Guardian and identified these details without answers, in the Guardian Live page :

• We don’t know how much it would cost;
• We don’t know what reactors they would use;
• We don’t know how they would purchase the privately owned coal stations;
• We don’t know how they would overcome state objections;
• We don’t know where the waste would go;
• We don’t know how they plan on building two of the reactors within the 2035-37 timeline;
• We don’t know where the funding would come from;
• There has been no serious consultation with communities; and
• There has been no serious research undertaken with the sites.

Going down the nuclear energy path would require reversing a ban on nuclear Energy Federally in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as reversing nuclear bans at the State Level where both Labor and Liberal parties have not voiced support.

Who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?

Only one in ten Australians would want to live near a nuclear reactor, while most would prefer to live near wind and solar farms, new polling in January 2024 shows.

The polling for the Australian Conservation Foundation, which came before the Coalition released its plan for nuclear reactors in Australia, found:

• 72% of Australians believe we should continue the shift to renewable energy rather than build nuclear energy (17%) or new coal (11%).
• 76% of Australians would prefer to live near renewable energy projects, like wind and solar farms, than near nuclear (12%) or coal (11%).
• 75% of Australians think the number one way to bring down power bills quickly is to build more renewable energy and batteries or subsidise rooftop solar.
• Building new coal was considered the slowest way to provide power bill cost relief.

“This polling shows when the conversation moves from an abstraction to a postcode, there are high levels of community concern about nuclear and a clear preference for renewable solutions,” said ACF’s nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.

Costs and timeline

The CSIRO in its 2024 GenCost report suggested the first nuclear plant may take up to 15 years and cost from $8 billion to $15 billion. But these are fairly conservative estimates largely based on the South Korean Nuclear construction pipeline. Here in Australia it may be much longer given the legislative and regulatory hurdles to be overcome. And we may draw upon the extensive cost blowouts and delays in the English/European western world.

Let us look at the Hinkley C reactor (Wikipedia) being built in Somerset in the UK co-located with two older nuclear power stations. The site was selected in 2010, with an estimated cost of £9 billion (Au$17.1 billion), construction started 2017, final cost could rise up to £46 billion (Au$87.8 billion) in 2024 prices and be delayed by up to three years to 2029-2031. So that is 7 years planning + 14 years building = 21 years. About A$87 billion for just 1 nuclear power station and a 500 per cent cost blow out..

Maybe Hinkley C reactor is an outlier? Then consider in France the Flamanville Unit 3 reactor (Wikipedia) co-located with two other older nuclear power plants. Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion (Au$5.3 billion), and it would start commercial operations in 2012. Estimated total costs increased to €13.2 billion (Au$21.28 billion). Fuel loading started on 8 May 2024 and has been completed on 22 May 2024. That is 16.5 years timeline and a 400 per cent cost blowout.

Or the latest two reactors in the US, at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Wikipedia) in the state of Georgia, co-located with two older nuclear reacters. Construction started in 2009 and Capital costs for these two new units were originally estimated in 2017 at US$14 billion (Au$20.9 billion). In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion (Au$50.97 billion). Unit 3 began commercial operations on July 31, 2023, becoming the first new nuclear reactor in the United States in 7 years.[11] Unit 4 entered commercial operation on April 29, 2024. That is 15 years timeline and a 242 per cent cost blow out

The USA, Britain and France all have established nuclear industry to leverage, Australia has only a small toe in nuclear research.

So is the Liberals 10-12 years for 2 nuclear power stations overly optimistic? You bet. First of a kind nuclear power station in Australia would more likely take up to 20 years. The cheapest cost estimate by CSIRO is $8 billion, but they warn costs are more likely to blow out by at least 100 percent. Caution from the examples in the USA, France and the UK highlights that the costs might easily blowout by 200%, 400% or 500%. Australia’s the first nuclear power reactor could easily cost over $80 billion.

Most of the finance of nuclear power stations would come from the Australian government and would come at the opportunity cost of not funding wind and solar energy, grid transmissions and integrating storage technologies into a flexible grid. We already fund fossil fuel subsidies to the tune of $14.5 billion per annum and this would be expected to continue under a Coalition Government.

Nuclear modelling shows emissions plan fantasy

Optimistic modelling of the Coalition Nuclear power scenario shows that Australia under nuclear power could not meet net zero by 2050 climate target.

According to a Sydney Morning Herald Report, a report prepared by Solutions for Climate Australia, led by Barry Traill, highlights that Dutton’s proposal would result conservatively in some 2.3 billion tonnes of additional carbon emissions over the Australian Energy Market Operator’s step change scenario.

“It is a tragedy that the Federal Liberal Party has no plan to stop the increasing climate disasters which are directly killing Australians, and damaging communities, agriculture and businesses across the country, and globally,” said Dr Barry Traill, Director of Solutions for Climate Australia.”

“We need decisive action on climate pollution this decade to protect farmers, our food supply, businesses and trade. From uninsurable houses, to declining crop yields, to direct threats to life and property, we are all now being hurt by climate disasters.”

“Australians voted decisively for action on climate in the 2022 election. Mr Dutton’s weak, do-nothing approach on climate is out of step with the electorate. The community showed it expects all political parties to adopt strong, science-based targets to reduce pollution. The federal Coalition has not heeded the message of the nation on climate. They must do better.”

Even rolling out nuclear as early as 2040/41 – which it does not believe is feasible, but that is the nuclear rollout speed of France, would still leave Australia well short of reaching net zero by 2050.

The Coalition energy plan would require extebnding some coal fired power stations and a 10-fold increase in gas generation, which with its newly understood methane leaks and ambitions is barely cleaner than coal.

Under the following modelling, the Coalition continues to encourage residential solar, but puts a moratorium on grid scale solar farms, onshore wind farms and offshore wind farms.

Comparing the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Integrated System Plan (ISP) step change scenario emissions based on renewables energy transition with the Coalition Nuclear Scenario emissions to 2051/52.

IEA: ramp up renewables to address energy affordability and cost of living

At the global level, The International Energy Agency released a report on 30 May, Strategies for Affordable and Fair Clean Energy Transitions.

“The data makes it clear that the quicker you move on clean energy transitions, the more cost effective it is for governments, businesses and households,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “If policy makers and industry leaders put off action and spending today, we will all end up paying more tomorrow. The first-of-a-kind global analysis in our new report shows that the way to make energy more affordable for more people is to speed up transitions, not slow them down. But much more needs to be done to help poorer households, communities and countries to get a foothold in the new clean energy economy.”

Six Reasons Nuclear is bad for Australia

Here’s six evidence-based reasons why nuclear is bad for Australia gathered by the Australian Conservation Foundation:

1. Producing nuclear energy would simply take too long.

On average, it takes about nine years to build a nuclear power station and another 10 years for planning and licensing. Comparatively it takes an average of 1-3 years to build major solar and wind projects.

It is also illegal in every state and territory to build nuclear reactors, so any construction would have to wait for changes in legislation. There is no chance a nuclear power station could be built in Australia before 2040.

Climate change is an urgent threat, and we simply cannot afford to wait for nuclear.

2. Nuclear is dirty and dangerous, and poses significant community, environment and health risks.

Aside from the radioactive waste they generate (we’ll get to that later), nuclear power stations run on uranium which, like coal and gas, is not a renewable resource. Mining uranium pollutes our air, soil, and water and can damage the genetic and reproductive systems of plants, animals and people.

All of Australia’s operating uranium mines have a history of leaks, spills, and accidents. We are already battling the impacts of coal and gas on the environment. Our planet cannot afford this pollution.

Then there is the radiation. Let’s not forget, radiation from major nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 has impacted hundreds of thousands of people and contaminated large areas. The Fukushima disaster was directly fuelled by Australian uranium and to this day wastewater is still an ongoing issue with this disaster.

3. Nuclear is far more expensive compared to renewable options.

Modelling shows that developing nuclear infrastructure is 5-10 times more expensive than solar and wind.

Nuclear is also an energy source that the market doesn’t want which means it would require massive public subsidies – your money – and big government intervention to fund.

Establishing nuclear would be a massive cost, not to mention the social and environmental costs of keeping coal-fired power stations open waiting for nuclear power to come online. As we said above, nuclear takes a long time to implement.

4. Nuclear power requires a lot of water.

Nuclear reactors use tonnes of water per second to cool the reactors to produce electricity. Wind and solar need little or no ongoing water use.

Water resourcing would need to be a huge consideration when planning the placement of nuclear power stations so that the resource can be adequately provided. Nuclear power stations would be competing against other industries and sectors for this precious resource and this would have adverse impacts on environment and the economy.

Water is a finite resource and we have alternatives that do not require ongoing water use.

5. We have no proven options for managing long-lived radioactive waste.

Radioactive waste is often described as the Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry.

All reactors create waste, and this is a growing and unresolved global management issue. For decades, governments have tried to impose low and intermediate level waste dumps and stores – predominantly on First Nations Land – across multiple sites in Australia. Every plan has been stopped by community, political and legal opposition.

Australia’s current intermediate level waste needs to be isolated from people and the environment for up to 10,000 years. High-level radioactive waste from commercial reactors must be isolated for up to 100,000 years.

Let’s contextualise this: A nuclear fuel rod produces around three years of electricity before it becomes unpredictable, and ultimately high-level waste. This means you get around 1000 days of electricity at the cost of 100,000 years of toxic waste!

And there is no proven options for managing this.

6. And finally, we have better alternatives that are renewable and ready.

Renewables are cheaper, cleaner and faster. They’re more deployable, popular and most importantly, they actually exist and are producing power in Australia today.

Not only is nuclear, expensive, dirty and dangerous, it is also entirely unproven. The Opposition’s nuclear plans are based on the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) which are not in commercial deployment anywhere in the world. Not one hot shower or cold drink has resulted from SMRs…

Australian renewables are now powering industrial manufacturing plants in the Hunter, Melbourne Airport, all of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Tasmania, as well as thousands of homes and buildings all around the country.

Australian renewables are already creating tens of thousands of future-proofed jobs while creating a zero-carbon, affordable energy system.

Why would we consider a dangerous nuclear future when we have renewable options right in front of us?

Renewable energy is clean, safe, affordable, low risk and popular.

Nuclear energy is risky, slow, and wildly expensive.

Our shared energy future is renewable not radioactive.

Speak out for a nuclear free future. Sign the petition today.

Climate Council on Dutton’s Nuclear Plan

The Climate Council has put forward that this plan will let the climate burn, let the mega fires burn, let the sea levels rise, let the heat become unbearable, send our children towards climate disaster. 

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “The Coalition’s nuclear proposal is a smokescreen for its commitment to climate pollution, a clear case of radioactive greenwashing and a scheme for more climate pollution, it’s that simple. 

“The winners from this scheme are the multinational coal and gas corporations who will keep polluting until well past mid-century. On the other hand, as a result of this scheme, Australians will suffer from worsening unnatural disasters due to climate pollution. 

“Communities are being pummelled by heatwaves and dangerous bushfires one week, and extreme rainfall and flooding the next. Dutton’s scheme is: let the climate burn, let the mega fires burn, let the sea levels rise, let the heat become unbearable.

“Later is too late – we need clean energy now to slash climate pollution and keep our kids safe. With no workforce, no industry and no waste facilities, nuclear is a generation away in Australia. Nuclear reactors are a dangerous delay tactic that would mean climate pollution explodes in the next two decades. 

Gippsland residents say no to nuclear

Friends of the Earth’s Gippsland organiser and President of the Voices of the Valley Wendy Farmer said:

“Dutton is dreaming up a nuclear nightmare. The proposal to build a nuclear power plant in the Latrobe Valley on a geological faultline in a community that already suffered the impacts of the Hazelwood coal mine fire is dangerous and insulting” said Wendy Farmer, FoE’s Gippsland organiser and President of Voices of the Valley.

See The Project: Local Communities react to Coalition Nuclear power plans which features Wendy Farmer from Voices of the Valley from the La Trobe Valley:

Political reaction

Victoria’s premier, Jacinta Allan, has written a letter to Peter Dutton saying that if the Coalition wins the next election she will do everything in her power to stop the party’s nuclear energy plan.

You say you will negotiate with the states. I won’t be negotiating. I won’t allow a lurch backwards to nuclear power that sends bills skyrocketing, nor will I allow the Latrobe Valley to become your dumping ground.

Victoria’s energy minister, Lily D’Ambrosio reiterated that position from the Premier Jacinta Allan, that the state would not repeal its nuclear prohibition ban:

Now, what we’ve heard this morning from Peter Dutton is not a plan. What it is, is an absolute fantasy. We know that renewable energy delivers the cheapest form of new electricity that you can build in this country.

The facts are very clear, the evidence is clear. The only person who seems to dispute that is Peter Dutton. And you really have to wonder why. Now, it’s probably not hard to answer why, when the fact is, he’s never supported renewable energy. He’s always been very skeptical about climate change and the need to take action to protect our environment … and getting that transition done.

D’Ambrosio had spoken to the chief executives of both coal-fired plants in the La Trobe Valley and told reporters that neither of them have heard from Dutton or his office.

Neither of them have been approached, let alone consulted about the adequacy of this site to be used as a home for a future nuclear reactor. So, you know, let’s be factual and let’s not make things up, but it seems very clear that Peter Dutton has been has been very happy to make make it up as he goes to deliver on this nuclear announcement.

We know what Victorians support our move towards renewable electricity – 95% by 2035, the other 5% will be supported by peaking gas electricity generation, that is the plan and that is what we’re delivering now.

Victorian Oppposition Leader John Pesutto said:

We have no plans for nuclear as a state opposition. It may well be that a future federal government initiates a national discussion on nuclear power noting that there is a moratorium currently in place nationally. Our focus as a state opposition and as the alternative government is on addressing the current shortfalls in energy, particularly with gas shortfalls.

The Nationals leader, Peter Walsh, reiterates this:

You wouldn’t be surprised that our [the Nationals] view is exactly the same as John … the Victorian Nationals haven’t been [campaigning for nuclear], we are very much of the view that we want to make sure that we guarantee price of power, the affordability of power, the availability of power in the short to medium term, which is why we’ve been talking about the need for more gas into the system.

Queensland

Labor Premier of Queensland Steven Miles, has slammed nuclear power as “four to six times more expensive” than the alternatives.

Peter Dutton announced plans for two nuclear plants for the sunshine state this morning, in Tarong and Callide, both near existing coal plans. Miles:

We know that nuclear reactors are four to six times more expensive. So think about that. That means your electricity bill could go up four to six times to fund these nuclear reactors that the LNP wants to build in Queensland.

And that is not to mention how future generations – my kids, your kids – will need to manage dangerous radioactive nuclear waste, forever. That’s what that plan means.

Queensland has a legislated plan to transition to 80% renewables by 2035, when Dutton says the first nuclear plant would come online. Queensland also has state legislation banning nuclear power generation.

Queensland LNP Opposition Leader David Crisafulli said “Peter knows my position on it [nuclear],” he said. “It’s not part of our plan.”

The Brisbane Times reported that Crisfulli said his state LNP party room had been consistent in opposing plans for nuclear technology.

“That’s a discussion for Canberra. My focus is on making sure that Queenslanders know that we’re focused on bringing them good government in Queensland, and I spoke about those issues and that’s not part of our plan,” he said.

References

Australian Conservation Foundation, Six reasons why nuclear is bad for Australia https://www.acf.org.au/six-reasons-why-nuclear-is-bad-for-australia

Australian Conservation Foundation, Power games: Assessing coal to nuclear proposals in Australia (30-page report) https://www.acf.org.au/power-games-assessing-coal-to-nuclear-proposals-in-australia

Australian Conservation Foundation, Why nuclear power will never be right for Australia (10-page summary) https://www.acf.org.au/why-nuclear-power-will-never-be-right-for-australia

The Guardian, 22 May 2024, CSIRO says nuclear plant would cost at least $8.6bn as Coalition stalls on policy details https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/22/australia-nuclear-power-plants-csiro-peter-dutton-liberal-coalition-plan

Paul Graham, Jenny Hayward and James Foster, CSIRO, May 2024, GenCost 2023‐24 Final report https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Final_20240522.pdf

Brisbane Times, 19 June 2024, Dutton pitches two Queensland nuclear power sites – and power to take them https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/dutton-names-two-proposed-nuclear-power-sites-in-queensland-20240619-p5jmz5.html

The Guardian, 19 June, 2024, Here’s what we know about the Coalition’s seven planned nuclear power sites https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-nuclear-power-plan-plant-sites-loy-yang-callide-tarong-liddell

Climate Council, 19 June 2024, Dutton’s Climate Policy: Let it Burn https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/duttons-climate-policy-let-it-burn/

International Energy Agency, 30 May 2024, Rapid rollout of clean technologies makes energy cheaper, not more costly https://www.iea.org/news/rapid-rollout-of-clean-technologies-makes-energy-cheaper-not-more-costly

Mike Foley, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 June 2024, Libs nuclear plan would blow out climate pollution, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-ditch-paris-agreement-analysis-reveals-nuclear-impact-on-emissions-20240604-p5jj8s.html