Right: Residents in Traralgon in Victoria's Gippsland region stage a rally outside their federal MP's office, vowing to fight the plan to use existing infrastructure to distribute nuclear-generated electricity.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against Australia generating nuclear power
1. Renewable energy can provide a reliable power supplyThe Clean Energy Australia 2024 Report noted that in 2023 renewables accounted for 39.4 per cent of Australia's total electricity supply.
Supporters of renewables claim that this can be boosted to 100 percent and that natural fluctuations in renewable energy supply can be overcome. The measures that can ensure consistent supply to meet demand include smart grids and improved storage systems.Smart grids use advanced technology to optimise power supply to consumers and minimise the effect of variations in supply and demand. The European Union Commission Task Force for Smart Grids has defined smart grids as 'an electricity network that can cost efficiently integrate the behaviour and actions of all users connected to it - generators, consumers and those that do both - to ensure [an] economically efficient, sustainable power system with low losses and high levels of quality and security of supply and safety. A smart grid employs innovative products and services together with intelligent monitoring, control, communication, and self-healing technologies to... facilitate the connection and operation of generators of all sizes and technologies and allow consumers to play a part in optimising the operation of the system.'
Smart grid technology has begun to be employed in Australia. On September 4, 2024, Associate Professor Hemanshu Pota of the university of New South Wales, Sydney, explained the benefits of smart grids as applied to Australia. He stated, 'Australia's electricity network is the longest in the world, and perhaps with the least number of users. Smart grids can reduce transmission losses and achieve a high level of renewable integration, especially suited to Australia with abundant sunshine and coastal wind... We develop algorithms that use data from a few key network locations to accurately predict the grid's capacity in real-time. These predictions help with smart scheduling, ensuring the grid stays stable and uses its capacity to the fullest.' Milton Contracting, MC Electrical & Communications, a major Australian supplier of smart grid technology has claimed, 'In Australia, smart grids are emerging as a solution to rising electricity costs, aging infrastructure, and the shift away from coal-fired power stations??. They are pivotal in ensuring a robust and secure electricity supply, which is crucial for Australia's economic growth and technological advancement.' Among the countries that have or will begin investing in substantial smart grid infrastructure are Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the EU including many member states, Japan, Korea, Australia, India, and China. Supporters of renewable power generation claim that reliable power supply can also be achieved through existing and improved long-term energy storage. There are many energy storage technologies available. Mature energy storage technologies include lithium-ion battery (LIB) and pumped hydro energy storage (PHES). LIB provide short to mid duration energy services. PHES provide medium to long duration services.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has explained, 'Coupling batteries with renewable energy generation allows that energy to be stored during times of low demand and released (or dispatched) at times of peak demand. Unlike many other forms of energy storage and generation, batteries are particularly valuable because they provide flexibility. They can respond faster than other energy storage or generation technologies and help maintain grid stability by turning on and off in fractions of a second.' Australia is the largest producer of lithium in the world. In 2021, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency announced funding for Australia's first PHES system in 37 years. Located at the former Kidston Gold Mine in north Queensland, the project will be the first to support the integration of variable renewable energy generation from solar and wind. Further, in 2020, construction began on the Snowy 2.0 project, which will link two existing dams in the Snowy Mountains and provide 2000 MW of capacity and 350,000 MWh of storage...able to power approximately 3 million homes over a week. The target date for commercial operation of all units is December 2028, with first power expected in the second half of 2027. Additional long duration energy storage technologies, including compressed air, thermal energy, and redox flow batteries, are already becoming available in Australia.
On May 24, 2024, the Australian Government released a National Battery Strategy that sets out a plan to establish a battery design and development industry in Australia. Developments such as those outlined above are used to justify claims that it is possible to provide energy for Australia using only renewable power sources. At least ten nations in the world use renewables to generate between 95 and 100 percent of their power. These are Albania, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, Tajikistan, Uruguay and Scotland.
2. Nuclear energy will take too long to establish in Australia
Critics of the Coalition's nuclear proposal argue that not only will the seven planned power stations supply a very small amount of the country's total energy needs, but they also complain that these plants will take more than ten years each to construct. This will not allow Australia to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets.
The Coalition has claimed that nuclear power plants could be operational in Australia by 2035. This figure has been widely disputed. Peter Farley, a fellow of the Australian Institution of Engineers, has argued that it would take several years before a nuclear power plant could even begin to be constructed. Farley notes, 'Let's start with an assessment of how long it would take to place an order. The first thing is for the Opposition to win an election, where they control both the House and Senate. That is possible but quite unlikely before 2028 but let's assume they get into power and draft very detailed legislation and get it passed by the end of 2025.
'Then we must vastly expand the nuclear safety agency ARPANSA to include people with experience in nuclear power plants. The UK has 700 people doing this job with only nine reactors. Will we build a new industry with fewer inspectors?
'Then regulations must be drafted which are updated versions of the very antiquated regulations in the UK and US...Every page must be scrutinised to ensure conflicts with existing...rules and regulations are resolved. This is not trivial. Let's say based on other new bureaucratic endeavours, two years from when the legislation is passed.'
Therefore, according to Farley, it would be at least three to four years before the sites could be selected.The Coalition has indicated the seven sites where it wishes to have the nuclear power stations built. However, three of the states concerned (Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria), accounting for four of the proposed reactors, have their own laws banning the construction of nuclear power plants. There are also laws in other states (and regulations in various municipalities) banning the transportation of nuclear material. All these laws and regulations will have to be overturned by compulsory acquisition and legal challenge or through negotiated agreements.
Then there is the question of how long it will take to construct the nuclear power plants. The CSIRO has estimated that building a nuclear power plant in Australia is likely to take at least 15 years.
The Climate Council has noted, 'A nuclear power station has never been built in Australia. As a result, we are not at the starting line for a nuclear energy industry... The nuclear industry's own analysis shows power stations take an average of 9.4 years to build - and, with no domestic nuclear industry experience, Australia's first nuclear power station will almost certainly take much longer.' Jack Lloyd, writing for Manufacturers' Monthly in an article published on August 7, 2024, noted, 'Australia's energy transition is already struggling, and adding the monumental task of building nuclear power plants without a sufficient workforce is impractical.' Nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, requiring elaborate safeguards as part of their construction. This makes them both expensive and time-consuming to build. The World Nuclear Association has acknowledged this, noting on September 29, 2023, 'Nuclear power plants are more complex than other large-scale power generation plants, and so are more capital-intensive and may take longer to construct.'
The Coalition's nuclear plan includes two small modular reactors (SMRs); however, overseas experience has not suggested that these are either a quicker or cheaper alternative. The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has noted 'SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s.' It was further claimed, 'The "least risky option" would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas.'
An Australian Conservation Foundation report has found only two small modular reactors (SMRs) are known to be operating around the world, in Russia and China, and both have seen large cost blowouts. 3. Nuclear energy poses significant safety and waste disposal hazards
Opponents of nuclear energy claim that the dangers associated with nuclear power generation have been underestimated. They also claim that there is no effective way of managing the long-term risks connected with storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
Critics note there is a narrow focus on the two most serious accidents to occur at a nuclear reactor (Chernobyl, 1986, and Fukushima, 2011); however, many other significant nuclear incidents are not generally known about. The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) was introduced in 1990 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is a seven-point scale which ranges from Level 1 - Anomaly (including incidents such as the overexposure of a member of the public to radiation above statutory annual limits) to Level 7 - Major Accident (involving major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects). Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents were rated at Level 7.
This rating scale has been criticised as conservative and excluding nuclear incidents which have caused serious harm. On March 16, 2011, a report was published by Benjamin K. Sovacool, a professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Professor Sovacool stated, 'Under these classifications [International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale], the number of nuclear accidents, even including the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, is low. But if one redefines an accident to include incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 in property damage, a very different picture emerges.' Professor Sovacool then explained, 'At least 99 nuclear accidents meeting this definition, totalling more than $20.5 billion in damages, occurred worldwide from 1952 to 2009 - or more than one incident and $330 million in damage every year... Indeed, when compared to other energy sources, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, and natural gas systems in terms of fatalities... There have been 57 accidents since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. While only a few involved fatalities, those that did collectively killed more people than have died in commercial US airline accidents since 1982.'
The storage and disposal of nuclear waste also poses major risks. In an article published in The Conversation on June 26, 2024, Professors Rosemary Hill and Ian Lowe explained, 'Nuclear power plants produce high-level waste, which is radioactive for a very long time. Negative health effects in humans from exposure to high-level radiation include birth defects, impaired tissue and organ functioning, and increased risk of cancer. Nuclear waste only becomes safe after it decays...That means the waste must be disposed of and stored for a . . . long time.'
Decay rates vary depending on the types of radioactive material generated as waste. The radioactive waste from spent fuel rods consists primarily of cesium-137 and strontium-90, but it may also include plutonium. Cesium-137 and strontium-90 have half-lives of approximately 30 years. However, plutonium has a half-life that be as long as 24,000 years. Professors Hill and Lowe further explained some of the problems associated with storage of radioactive waste. They stated, 'The current temporary [storage] options are either "wet" or "dry" storage. Wet storage entails putting the waste in a pond and covering it with several metres of water to keep it cool. Dry storage involves putting the waste in containers made of concrete and steel. These options are not a long-term solution. They are vulnerable to corrosion as well as natural disasters such as cyclones, tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, and floods.'
Both wet and dry storage take place at the reactor site. Both forms of storage are technically considered temporary; however, Finland is the only country in the world with a permanent, underground high-level nuclear waste disposal site. The United States Nuclear Regulators Commission has produced a fact sheet detailing the risks associated with exposure to 'spent' fuel from nuclear reactors. The Commission states, 'High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour - far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once.' The Commission also considered the risks posed by these radioactive substances if they contaminate waterways. The Commission explains, 'If isotopes from these high-level wastes get into groundwater or rivers, they may enter food chains. The dose produced through this indirect exposure would be much smaller than a direct-exposure dose, but a much larger population could be exposed.'
Studies have demonstrated that there are radioactivity-related health risks for those who live in communities where nuclear reactors operate. This risk has been found to be higher among children as they are more susceptible to the effects of radiation. A paediatric study published in the British Medical Journal on October 7, 2022, noted, 'Nuclear power plants routinely release radioactivity as part of daily operation. In 2008, a landmark case-control study was published in Germany... It revealed an unsettling 1.6-fold increase in all cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukaemias among children under 5 years old living within 5 km of operating nuclear power plants. In general, the incidences were higher the closer the children lived to the nuclear plant.'
In relation to the planned locations for nuclear reactors in Australia, critics have noted that the Coalition has had no studies made of the geological suitability of the seven sites where it proposes to build these facilities. On August 27, 2024, shortly after the Newcastle earthquakes, Dave Sweeney of the Australian Climate Foundation noted, 'A magnitude 4.8 earthquake not far from one of Peter Dutton's proposed nuclear reactor sites is further evidence of the risky nature of the Coalition's radioactive plan. The Coalition failed to do any detailed site analysis or community consultation and has instead based its plan on politics rather than evidence. The Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by a tsunami following an earthquake off the coast of Japan. Nuclear facilities are particularly vulnerable to external - and often unpredictable - seismic and climate events. Many Australians will have clear memories of the scenes of devastation that followed the December 1989 Newcastle earthquake that killed 13, injured more than 150 and caused a damage bill of around $5 billion. If this event had involved a nuclear reactor, the scale of destruction and impact would have been far greater.'
4. Nuclear energy is far more expensive than energy produced from wind or solar
Critics of building nuclear reactors in Australia argue they are a far more expensive source of energy than solar or wind farms.
Critics claim that the Coalition's statements about the low cost of nuclear power are inaccurate. The Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has based many of his favourable predictions regarding the price of nuclear energy on figures from Canada, especially Ontario. In his speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, given on September 23, 2024, Peter Dutton claimed, 'The Canadian province of Ontario has 8.5 percent renewables, 52 percent nuclear, 25 percent hydro - with the balance from gas.' He then claimed that Ontarians pay about 18 cents a kilowatt hour for their electricity and that this was a third of the cost that most Australians pay.
In his budget reply address on May 16, 2024, Mr Dutton gave a lower figure, claiming, 'Because of nuclear power, residents in Ontario, Canada pay up to a quarter of the cost of what some Australians pay for electricity. These figures have been repeatedly challenged. Dylan McConnell, Senior Research Associate at the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, at the University of New South Wales, has claimed that the current wholesale cost of power in Ontario - at $110 a megawatt hour - was comparable to or higher than the wholesale cost of energy across much of Australia. Other critics have noted that the initial cost of nuclear power in Ontario was much higher and that the current rates only apply because the cost of constructing the province's nuclear facilities has finally been paid. In an article published in The Age on September 27, 2024, Mike Foley explained, 'Ontarian consumers and energy companies [have] paid down debts from the construction and maintenance of nuclear plants that had ballooned to $C38 billion by 1999, so that cost no longer appears on their power bills.' Australian research from multiple sources has found that nuclear power plants are a far more expensive source of power than solar or wind farms. The CSIRO's GenCost report has stated, 'By 2030, electricity from a combination of solar and wind would cost between $73 and $128 a megawatt hour, depending on how much renewable energy was already in the system. This compared with large-scale nuclear at $141 to $233/MWh and $230 to $382/MWh for small modular reactors.'
An independent report commissioned and published by the Clean Energy Council in May 2024 reviewing the estimates of the CSIRO and others suggested that the cost difference could be even greater. The Clean Energy Council stated, 'Nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity.' The report also states, 'Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available.' The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has examined the cost of nuclear power plants around the world to predict what outlays Australia may have to make. In a report released on September 26, 2024, the IEEFA stated, 'We found that recent nuclear projects in economies comparable to Australia faced significant cost overruns and delays with multi-billion-dollar consequences. All projects commencing construction in the past 20 years in comparable economies experienced major budget blowouts up to 31/2 times original capital costs (excluding financing cost) and construction delays of many years.' The IEEFA also considered the viability of small modular reactors and concluded, 'Small modular reactors (SMRs), often touted as a solution to the nuclear industry's cost and construction time problems, remain costly and unproven, with no reactors in operation in the OECD. The reactor closest to becoming a reality - NuScale in Utah, the US - was cancelled due to cost blowouts and delays.'
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has also investigated the potential impact of nuclear power on the price paid by electricity users. It states, 'Scenarios we modelled showed that median electricity bills could rise by $665 a year on average across regions. The bill increase could range from $260 for the cheapest projected nuclear project in Czechia to more than $1,200 for projects such as Hinkley Point C in the UK. For larger households, the increase would be even more pronounced. A four-person household could pay $972 more per year on average across scenarios, and for even larger households, bills might rise by $1,182. From the examples we analysed, we found the cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would be 1.5 to 3.8 times higher than current electricity generation costs in Australia.'
5. Australia's proposed nuclear plants are insufficient and will divert investors from renewables
Critics of establishing nuclear energy plants in Australia argue that they will generate too little power to service most of Australia's power needs and they will undermine the development of renewable energy by reducing government policy support and curtailing investment.
Critics of the Coalition's nuclear scheme argue that the seven proposed nuclear plants would not provide a major portion of Australia's power supply. In June 2024, analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) warned that these power stations would make only a minor contribution to Australia's non-emitting sources of energy. BNEF have stated, 'Adding nuclear power into Australia's energy mix would only reduce the country's [reliance on] ... solar power capacity by 7 percent and require 12 percent less wind power capacity.'
The BNEF analysis suggests that renewables would still be required to produce most of the nation's energy. The Australian Climate Council has similarly stated, 'The electricity delivered by seven nuclear reactors would only provide around 12 percent of the power we'll need by 2050.' Cost appears to be a primary obstacle to using nuclear reactors to generate more of Australia's power. Modelling prepared by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator has indicated that replacing Australia's coal-fired power stations with nuclear energy would require more than 70 small modular reactors (SMRs) and cost $387 billion. Critics claim the Opposition's policy favouring nuclear power plants will prevent renewables from covering the power shortfall not supplied by nuclear reactors. The Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has suggested seven power plants could remove the need for many of the currently proposed wind and solar farms. He has also stated that much less infrastructure would be required as nuclear power stations could use existing power lines. In his speech delivered on September 23, 2024, Mr Dutton stated, 'With nuclear, there's no need to carpet our landscape and coastline with industrial-scale solar and wind farms. Or the 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines needed to make them work.'
However, critics believe that the Coalition has got the balance wrong and is undermining renewables without offering an adequate replacement. Matthew Warren, former chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, has noted, 'The Coalition has not explained where the other 80 per cent-plus of non-nuclear generation would come from.' Some analysts fear that the Coalition's nuclear proposal and negative comments about renewables will undermine investment and dramatically slow the building of further solar and wind farms. Chris Bowen, the federal government Minister for Climate Change and Energy, has accused Mr Dutton of wanting 'to stop renewable investment [and] tear up contracts for new renewable and transmission projects'. Commentators outside of politics have expressed similar fears regarding the effect of the current debate. Rennie Co chief executive, Matt Rennie, has stated that if Australia's energy direction becomes uncertain, 'investors would take time to regain confidence in Australia's energy policy settings, leading to a significant stalling in all energy investments. This would have catastrophic implications for [power supply] reliability which would flow through to prices.'
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) has similarly warned that the nuclear debate could serve as a distraction from policy support for renewable energy investment, in which case it would 'sound the death knell for [Australia's] decarbonisation .' Critics from other nations also claim the nuclear debate threatens to undermine renewables' progress. Sharon Squassoni, research professor at the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy, Elliott School of International Affairs, at the George Washington University, has argued that extending nuclear energy 'will slow the transition to a net-zero emissions future and should therefore be trimmed from our set of options. Continuing to support nuclear energy at the expense of faster and cheaper alternatives for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a losing strategy.'
Similar concerns have been expressed by the Climate Action Network Europe which has stated, 'As the nuclear debate aggressively dominates political negotiations, media, and public discourse, it blatantly diverts critical attention from advancing the existing, affordable, sustainable solutions to the energy transition. This overwhelming focus on nuclear power not only overshadows but also poses a risk of derailing the European energy transition, hindering progress towards aligning with the ambitious yet achievable goal of a 100% renewable energy system by 2040.'