- by Denis Doherty
- The Guardian
- Issue #2105
Image: Nicolas Raymond – freestock.ca / flickr.com (CC BY 2.0)
We watched in horror as Peter Dutton and a whole cavalcade of Coalition ministers rolled out their nuclear nightmare in a blatant attempt to keep burning coal and gas.
Nuclear is simply too expensive, will take far too long to build, is far too dangerous, and is little more than a political tool in the Coalition strategy to delay renewables.
Let’s deal briefly with some of the reasons why nuclear energy is not an option for Australia.
COST
The cost is prohibitive. At a minimum, Dutton’s ‘policy’ would cost $100 billion. With health, housing, and the NDIS coming apart at the seams, the nuclear option is reckless and uncaring.
What kind of blowout would we get with Dutton’s nuclear power stations – double the cost (Dutton has not given us any figures yet) or multiplied by five or six? This is the usual pattern of cost blowouts with major infrastructure projects in Australia.
With $30 million a day for the next 30 years to be spent on the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, we must now add many more billions for nuclear reactors.
TIMING
The reactors will take ages to build. There is not one recognised expert on nuclear reactors who agrees that Dutton can bring this home by 2035 or 37 – in 11 to 15 years from now. ‘On time and on budget’ is a line that comedians use to get a good laugh at the expense of governments.
SAFETY
Can we be confident that Australia would not have the same problems as South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission which has been accused of disregarding the safety regulations it is meant to enforce – while the nuclear power industry is closing down after discoveries of corruption, graft and dangerous short cuts.
Nuclear accidents as a result of mechanical or human error do happen – Five Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima prove this. The Fukushima nuclear reactor was hit by a tsunami. Australia is not immune from natural disasters.
The Fukushima meltdown disaster is not over and will never end.
Massive quantities of radiation escaped into the air and water from the damaged reactors. This contamination was widespread in vegetables, fruit, meat, milk, rice, and tea in many areas of Japan. The radioactive fallout which covers large swathes of Japan will never be cleaned up and will contaminate food, humans, and animals virtually forever.
Radioactive water has been discharged into the Pacific. Tuna caught off the coast of California are already contaminated by cesium 134 and 137 from Fukushima. Large quantities of radioactive water are still escaping into the Pacific Ocean from leaking ground water and other sources.
Nuclear radiation interferes with genetics and causes cancers and deformities in children. Three eyed fish, two headed lambs and “jellyfish” human babies are real. This is not scare mongering but a risk inherent in using nuclear reactors. Why take the risk when there are safe, cheap and reliable alternatives?
NUCLEAR WASTE
The added cost of storing spent fuel rods was not mentioned but the controversy about storing spent rods at Kimba South Australia was. This projected site in SA has been rejected by the local people and now far bigger storage sites would be needed for tons of radioactive material that would be generated by the Dutton project. Imagine the fights with traditional owners as a site is chosen.
AUKUS
We feared from the outset that AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines would be used as a lever to allow nuclear power into Australia. The Coalition and friendly journalists are trying that on now, with the farcical argument that since we will one day have to store waste from the AUKUS submarines, it’ll be a breeze to store waste from seven nuclear reactors.
The fear now is that the introduction of nuclear power will be used as a lever to allow Australia to acquire nuclear weapons.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Peter Dutton is remembered for his crack about water lapping at the doorstep of the people of South Pacific. At one stroke he alienated many in the South Pacific as he fails to deal with climate change.
His policy to reject the Paris emissions reduction target, and to limit funding for renewables will impact negatively on investment in new renewable technologies, benefitting the polluting gas industry.
Dutton’s nuclear nightmare will not help with the floods, fires and other natural disasters we have been warned will increase in the coming decades.
But the future in renewable energy is bright as is the jobs potential.
COMMUNITY ACTION
The Opposition Leader’s uncosted plan offers very little detail, while committing Australia to the most expensive form of energy and undermining cheap and abundant renewables.
It is beyond dispute that solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy are cheaper than coal fired power stations, cheaper than gas-fired stations, and cheaper than nuclear power plants. The International Energy Association describes solar as the cheapest electricity in history.
We cannot rely on the ALP government. We must activate the community to reject this madness with every fibre available to us.
Nuclear Australia? The Pacific reacts
Australia’s opposition leader, Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government’s future nuclear energy plans. Dutton named seven proposed sites for nuclear plants after implausibly claiming the plan would cost less than Australia’s renewable energy development.
Nuclear power plants are currently banned in all states and territories in Australia. While the final cost has not been revealed, it is estimated that the total cost for Dutton’s imagined reactors would be around $100 million.
Jacynta Fa’amau, 350.org Pacific Campaigner says:
“This nuclear fantasy is a distraction from genuine climate action on Australia’s part. The Coalition claims to have the concerns of Australian people in mind, but we know for a fact that nuclear power is up to eight times more expensive than large-scale wind or solar power. As a Pacific Islander living in Australia, of course I want our government to meet their climate commitments and keep the hopes of the Paris Agreement alive. But swapping out one destructive energy source for another is not the answer. A “Just Transition” means no one is left behind and from what we’ve seen, coal workers have not been consulted, communities near proposed plant sites are worried, and the nuclear timeline does not keep us below the target of 1.5 degrees.”
Alisi Rabukawaqa, Pacific Climate Warriors Council Elder says:
“The Pacific has a painful and horrific nuclear history. Australia currently doesn’t have a place to store its nuclear waste, and finding a spot has proved difficult. Why gamble on a dangerous industry when they have access to safer solutions like wind and solar? The fact that we share an ocean with this Coalition means that we will have to pay close attention to Australia’s elections, and the direction that their energy transition takes.”
