Letters to the editor can be GREAT to get info out to large numbers of people. The letters page is the second most widely read page in the newspaper. Journalists read the letters page.
You can write a letter in a few minutes and send it to many newspapers with the press of a single button, with a reasonable likelihood that at least one newspaper will print it. Well worth the effort.
Tips:
* Keep it short and simple. Max. 200 words. Some great letters are just 25-50 words.
* Aim to respond by 1pm on the day of an issue arising.
* File your letters so you can recycle them − this saves heaps of time.
* Most likely to get published if the letter is REACTING to articles or letters in the paper (or to prominent news stories being covered in all the media). Occasionally letters to the editor can GENERATE discussion/debate in the letters page so don’t discount that possibility.
* Most letters can be sent to many newspapers, increased chance of publication. You can send a letter to multiple newspapers with just one email but make sure to use the blind carbon copy (BCC) option. This type of letter is best if an issue is getting widespread coverage across many media outlets.
* The other type of letter is referring to a specific article in a specific newspaper. Reference the article in your letter (in brackets at the end of the first sentence), and don’t use the bcc option (because you want the letters editor to know the letter is specifically for that newspaper).
* Write in the body of the email (not as an attachment). No formatting (no colour, bold etc).
* Make sure to include your name, job/organisation, address, phone number. Occasionally the letters editor will ring to confirm that you are the author of the letter they’re planning to run.
Write yourself a template like this and keep it where you can easily find it (e.g. in a file called LETTERS on your Desktop, and in the same file you can keep your collection of published and unpublished letters for recycling).
Date
Dear Letters Editor,
I would be grateful if you could consider the following letter.
Yours sincerely,
Your name
Your address
Your phone and email
—
TITLE OF LETTER (not essential)
… text of letter …
Your name
Job/organisation (if speaking on behalf of an organisation)
Your suburb/state
EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR LETTERS EDITORS
N.B. SOME OF THE FOLLOWING INFO IS OUT OF DATE — BEST TO COMPILE YOUR OWN LIST OF UP-TO-DATE CONTACTS.
NATIONAL
Australian Financial Review edletters@afr.com.au or via web: www.afr.com/home/letter.aspx
The Australian letters@theaustralian.com.au
Crikey boss@crikey.com.au
VICTORIA
Herald-Sun hsletters@hwt.newsltd.com.au
Sunday Herald Sun shsletters@hwt.newsltd.com.au
The Age letters@theage.com.au
ACT
Canberra Times letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au
NSW
Sydney Morning Herald letters@smh.com.au
Daily Telegraph letters@dailytelegraph.com.au or via web www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/your-say
The Dutton Coalition is subjecting Australians to industrial-scale deceit regarding nuclear power and renewable energy sources. Here are some articles, videos and links to help you fact-check the Coalition’s lies.
In the vibrant, renewable-rich landscape of Australia, the symphony of wind and solar has long played the tune of progress, an unexpected blare cuts through the harmony. Like a foghorn in the calm of dawn, the sudden advocacy for nuclear power from a party that previously silenced such discussions is turning heads and raising eyebrows. It’s an about-turn that could make solar panels tilt in curiosity.
I’m Rosie Barnes, and with 20 years in the trenches of clean energy development, I’ve seen firsthand the evolution of Australia’s energy landscape. Does Australia need nuclear power?
Petter Dutton’s push for nuclear
The notion of nuclear energy was, until recently, firmly off the table for Australia. But now it’s found its way back into conversation championed by the Conservative opposition party under the leadership of Peter Dutton. There’s a push to integrate nuclear power as a backbone for Australia’s clean energy future. His vision includes swift construction timelines for large reactors and small modular reactors once that technology matures. And they are specifically targeting the sites of our retiring coal plants to take advantage of existing infrastructure. The first obstacle that these nuclear plans face is that nuclear power is currently banned in Australia.
Back in 1998, the Conservative Howard government wanted to secure a nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney. To do so, they needed support from the Greens Party, who made a deal to support the research reactor if a nationwide ban on nuclear power plants was introduced at the same time. So, it was banned and remains so today. But what if this ban were lifted? Should we then embrace nuclear for our energy future?
Nah, it’s a dumb idea for Australia. And I’m not just throwing around words here. There are some solid reasons behind this bold claim, four to be precise.
Nuclear is too slow
Let’s start with the first one. The sluggish pace of bringing nuclear power online. In an era where rapid change is the norm, this slow stride just doesn’t cut it. Ready on to find out why.
Recently completed nuclear power plants have taken about nine years on average to construct. If we step into our time machine to 2033 Australia, 90% of our electricity will come from renewables by then. Which doesn’t leave a lot of space for nuclear. All of our brown coal power will be closed, and a decade later there’ll be no coal power at all. And that nine years I mentioned is only for construction. It takes years of planning before any contracts are signed.
Some countries are building nuclear reactors faster than that nine-year average. Some of China’s recent plant constructions have taken more like five years. But others, like the US and the UK, are taking much longer. The Vogtle plant in Georgia, USA, began construction in 2013, and it’s still not complete. And Hinkley Point C in the UK announced in 2007 that the reactors would power British homes by Christmas 2017. However, construction didn’t even start until 2018, and the latest projections push completion to beyond 2030, with more slippage expected by most people.
Those aren’t isolated examples. Nuclear projects are very prone to large overruns and construction time. Worse than any other kind of energy project. And the only other category of large projects that performs worse than nuclear power plants is Olympic Games and nuclear storage projects, according to Bent Flyvbjerg, who has spent his career studying cost and scheduling overruns in large projects. Out of the 191 nuclear power projects he studied, 93% of them took longer than expected to complete. And the mean schedule overrun was 65%. So if the plan for Australia is ten years construction (and remember, that needs to come after we change the law to allow it and develop a regulatory environment for nuclear power funding, etc.), then we could expect that on average, instead of ten years, it’ll actually take 16.5 years. And this would be our very first reactor built presumably by foreign experts in a new market and/or by inexperienced locals. I think it would be prudent to assume we’re not going to beat that average. All that is to say that by the time we managed to get a nuclear reactor operating in Australia, the energy transition would have mostly happened. That alone is reason enough to rule out nuclear power for Australia.
I’m going to go through three more reasons.
Nuclear does not play nicely with solar & wind
The next one is that it doesn’t play nicely with wind and solar power. Australia has a lot of wind and solar power and more and more every day. Fifteen years ago, less than 1% of our electricity came from wind and solar power. And today it’s over 30%, growing by about three or four percentage points every year.
Of course, the thing about wind and solar is that they are variable, nuclear power plants on the other hand, like to be turned on and stay operating at a nice constant output. If you don’t think very closely about it, perhaps you might think that sounds nice and complementary. Actually, it’s not. Electricity demand varies from hour to hour and season to season. Either nuclear or renewables need a dispatchable energy source like hydro, batteries or gas peakers to match generation with demand minute by minute. Combining nuclear with variable renewables, turns out to not actually reduce that amount of dispatchable power that’s needed by much, if anything. Now, there are lots of countries that combine nuclear with renewables, but none with both a lot of nuclear and a lot of variable renewables.
France gets most of its electricity from nuclear and most of the rest from renewables, but that’s nearly all hydro, which can be turned on and off when you want. Same with Switzerland, Armenia, and Slovenia. The only countries with both a lot of nuclear and a lot of variable renewables are Sweden, with 30% nuclear at 20% wind, and Finland with 35% nuclear and 16% wind. But crucially, both of these also have a lot of hydro, 40% and 20% respectively. Let’s look a bit closer at what exactly this means for a country like Australia with currently 32% of our electricity from wind and solar power.
Today, the amount of other generation needed varies by a factor of two. From midday to evening, on average, modern nuclear reactors can vary that output a bit, but to cycle from 50% to 100% on a daily basis is really pushing it. Today, that’s only done across fleets of nuclear by turning some off entirely and ramping the rest by a smaller amount, which means you need a large number of reactors like France has. And using their reactors intermittently like that with a lower capacity factor would make nuclear power more expensive.
This chart shows both high and low-cost estimates for nuclear power, and you can say that in either case, the difference between operating at 60% capacity factor instead of 90% capacity factor is going to add something like 30% to the cost of energy. Ramping up and down is also hard on the equipment, which leads to higher maintenance costs. There is at least one example of a reactor in Germany that broke down as a result of ramping and in that case it was only ramping up and down by about a third.
Nuclear is too expensive
Which leads me to the cost of nuclear power. It is expensive. There is admittedly a lot of disagreement amongst published values for the cost of nuclear, but the ones that I’ve seen are at least double and probably more than triple the cost of wind and solar in Australia. And that’s true even when you account for the extra integration costs that variable renewables need. That means extra transmission and more storage.
Furthermore, as well as being prone to schedule overruns, nuclear projects are even more prone to cost overruns. With the average nuclear project eventually costing over double its original estimate. In contrast, wind and solar projects have about 0 to 10% average cost overruns. Those are costs for new nuclear, but after it’s paid for itself, it is very cheap, and that’s great for countries that already have nuclear who might rather extend the lifetimes of their reactors than build new alternative sources of low carbon generation when those reactors were supposed to retire. But that’s not us in Australia. And that leads me to the last reason that nuclear is a dumb idea for Australia.
Nuclear solves problems that Australia doesn’t have
It solves problems we don’t have. There are a bunch of great things that nuclear can do, that wind and solar can’t. It can provide constant baseload power no matter the weather and no matter the season. Nuclear reactors also take up less space than renewables, and existing nuclear is cheap to run. Let’s tackle those one by one in the Australian context.
First, nuclear provides firm baseload power. Well, there’s no such thing as baseload in Australia anymore. At times, rooftop solar on its own covers 100% of the demand in the highest renewable energy grid, South Australia. That means there is no space for anything else at that time. This is going to happen more and more across larger and larger parts of the country as solar installations continue over the coming decades, but that’s usually only in spring and summer and probably a bit in autumn, too. What about winter? One of the benefits of nuclear is that it is weather and season independent, and that is great for countries whose energy demand peaks in winter when the solar power may be close to zero. But that’s not Australia for most of Australia. Energy demand is in summer and there is still good solar output in the winter.
You can see on this chart that the balance between renewables and fossil fuels in our current grid doesn’t change that much from month to month. But renewables are variable, intermittent, unreliable, right? What about dunkelflaute? That’s periods when there’s no wind and no sun for days or weeks at a time. Potentially a huge problem in some places, but again, not in Australia. Forty-two years of weather data history show that widespread dunkelflaute across the whole Australian grid last hours and occasionally a day, never weeks. These charts show renewable resources for every one of the last 42 years. There are some winter days where renewables dip a little under 50% of the average output. There are no weeks below 50%, and the worst-ever winter month was around 70% of the whole year average. There will be occasions every few decades where there will be a day or maybe two of very low wind and solar, and on occasion, a few weeks in a row of something like 50% average output. And for those, we will need to use something more expensive to cover those shortfalls after sitting around mostly idle for ten or 20 years at a stretch. But you can’t do that with a nuclear reactor. You can’t just turn on a nuclear reactor that’s been sitting idle for ten years. It’s going to be gas or hydrogen or biodiesel or something like that.
The next advantage of nuclear. It doesn’t take up much space. That is so important for countries like Japan, Korea, that have a lot of people packed in a small area. Well, guess what we are not short of in Australia? Space. Australia is so big and so sunny that we would only need 0.1% of our land covered in solar panels to generate all our energy from solar. For wind, it’s about double that. And that’s just sticking to onshore wind. If we consider offshore wind too, it’s going to be even less. And our wind farms coexist with grazing. Our solar panels mostly go on roofs and could co-exist with agriculture if we so wished. So even these tiny fractions are misleadingly large. In Australia, it does not matter that nuclear power might take up less space.
Should nuclear power be banned in Australia?
I can understand why countries like Korea, Sweden, or Canada feel like they would benefit from nuclear power. They have long, hard winters that solar power can’t help much with, and some of them have high population density. They can use nuclear to avoid seasonal storage and avoid needing energy imports. But even in winter Australia, solar is pretty good. And our dunkelflaute are infrequent and short. We have more than enough land to capture what we need. Do I think nuclear power should be banned in Australia? No. I think it should be allowed a level playing field with other energy technologies to allow a fair fight. Like most people, I want the cheapest clean electricity possible and for any one of the reasons I’ve mentioned, nuclear would lose that fair fight. Add them all up and there is absolutely zero chance we’ll ever have nuclear power in Australia.
==============================================
The Coalition says its nuclear plants will run for 100 years. What does the international experience tell us?
Peter Hannam, 24 June 2024, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/24/coalition-nuclear-policy-peter-dutton-power-plants-100-years-run-time
The Coalition says its nuclear plants will run for 100 years. What does the international experience tell us?
The average age of an active nuclear reactor worldwide is about 32 years – and a live plant reaching even 60 has ‘never happened’, an expert says
The federal Coalition’s pledge to build nuclear reactors on seven sites in five states if elected has continued to raise questions this week.
Ted O’Brien, the shadow energy minister, says the plants can operate for between 80 and 100 years, providing “cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity” compared with renewables.
That claim comes despite the CSIRO’s Gencost report estimating each 1-gigawatt nuclear plant could take 15-20 years to build and cost $8.4bn. The first may be double that given the high start-up costs.
But what does the state of the nuclear energy internationally tell us about the Coalition’s proposal?
What is the state of the global nuclear industry?
The world opened five nuclear reactors last year and shut the same number, trimming 1GW of capacity in the process, says Mycle Schneider, an independent analyst who coordinates the annual world nuclear industry status report.
During the past two decades, it’s a similar story of 102 reactors opened and 104 shutting. As with most energy sources, China has been the biggest mover, adding 49 during that time and closing none. Despite that burst, nuclear provides only about 5% of China’s electricity.
Last year, China added 1GW of nuclear energy but more than 200GW of solar alone. Solar passed nuclear for total power production in 2022 while wind overtook it a decade ago.
“In industrial terms, nuclear power is irrelevant in the overall global market for electricity generating technology,” he says.
As for small modular reactors, or SMRs, nobody has built one commercially. Not even billionaire Bill Gates, whose company has been trying for 18 years. The CSIRO report examined the “contentious issue” of SMRs, and noted that one of the main US projects, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, was cancelled last November. Even then, its estimated costs in 2020 of $18,200/kiloWatt, or more than double that of large-scale plants at $8,655/kW (in 2023 dollars).
“In late 2022 UAMPS updated their capital cost to $28,580/kW citing the global inflationary pressures that have increased the cost of all electricity generation technologies,” CSIRO said. “The UAMPS estimate implies nuclear SMR has been hit by a 57% cost increase which is much larger than the average 20% observed in other technologies.”
So at least some nations are still building large reactors?
Of the 35 construction starts since 2019, 22 were in China and the rest were Russian-built in various nations. Russia sweetens its deals by agreeing to handle the waste from the plants it builds.
“The US has blacklisted CGN and CNNC, which are the two major [Chinese] state-owned nuclear companies [in China] that could respond to an international call for tender,” Schneider says. “So could you imagine that Australia would hire a Chinese company under those conditions to build nuclear reactors?”
Aren’t allies like France an option?
France’s EDF was a poster child for the industry, not least because nuclear provides almost two-thirds of the country’s electricity. However, the firm has €54.5bn ($88bn) debt and hasn’t finished a plant since 2007.
Construction of its Hinkley Point C plant in the UK – two giant, 1.63GW units – began in 2018, aiming for first power from 2025. Rounds of delays now mean it might not fire up until 2031 and the costs may approach $90bn when it is complete.
South Korea’s Kepco has been active too, building the 5.6GW Barakah plant in the United Arab Emirates. As Schneider’s report notes, the UAE “did not agree” to the disclosure of cost, delays or impairment losses.
That Kepco debt totals an astonishing $US154bn ($231bn) is perhaps “a slight indication that they cannot have made tonnes of money in the UAE”, Schneider says.
The 4.5GW Vogtle plant reached full capacity in April, making it the US’s largest nuclear power station. Its first two units exceeded $US35bn, with the state of Georgia’s Public Service Commission saying cost increases and delays have “completely eliminated any benefit on a lifecycle costs basis”.
Can these plants really run 80-100 years?
Of the active 416 nuclear reactors, the mean age is about 32 years. Among the 29 reactors that have shut over the past five years, the average age was less than 43 years, Schneider says.
There are 16 reactors that have been operating for 51 years or more. “There is zero experience of a 60-year-old operating reactor, zero. It never happened. Leave alone 80 years or beyond,” he says. (The world’s oldest, Switzerland’s Beznau, has clocked up 55 years with periods of outages.)
CSIRO’s report looked at a 30- or 40-year life for a large nuclear plant as there was “little evidence presented that private financing would be comfortable” with risk for any longer.
As plants age, maintenance costs should increase, as they have in France. That’s not the case in the US, though, with declining investment in the past decade even as the average reactor age has jumped from 32 to 42 years.
“You have two options as to the outcome: either you hit an investment wall, so you have to have massive investments all over the place at the same time, or you get a very serious safety or security problem somewhere,” Schneider says.
US plants have been running an “incredible” 90% of the time over the past decade. Compare that with France’s load factor in 2022 of just 52%, he says.
“The best offshore wind farms in Scotland have a five-year average load factor of 54%.”
=============================================
Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?
Adam Morton, 20 June 2024, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/20/does-the-coalitions-case-for-nuclear-power-stack-up-we-factcheck-seven-key-claims
The Coalition has made a range of claims about what nuclear energy could do for Australia, and why it is better than building solar and wind.
What is the reality? We factcheck the key claims.
Would nuclear power provide cheaper electricity?
No evidence – such as economic modelling – has been produced to back up opposition leader Peter Dutton’s main argument about nuclear energy: that it would make Australians’ electricity bills cheaper than under a renewable energy-run grid and bring down other costs. As things stand, it is a baseless claim.
The CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) have assessed the cost of different electricity sources and found that solar and wind backed by storage energy, new transmission lines and other “firming” – what the country is building now, in other words – were the cheapest option.
They found nuclear generation would be significantly more expensive – the most expensive technology available – for consumers. They suggested Australia’s first large-scale nuclear power plant (1GW capacity) could cost about $17bn, not counting finance costs. If a nuclear industry was established, that might eventually drop to $8.6bn.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), a developing technology that the Coalition has suggested could be used in South Australia and Western Australia, are likely to be far more expensive again. They do not exist anywhere on a commercial basis. The leading proposal for an SMR in the US was last year cancelled due to rising cost.
Confronted with this, the Coalition argues the nuclear experience in Ontario, Canada, demonstrates that nuclear energy is cheaper than Australian renewable energy.
This is not a relevant comparison. Like France, Ontario runs on nuclear plants built decades ago. Construction costs in the 1980s tell us nothing about the costs in the 2030s and 2040s.
Even then, the claim electricity is cheaper in Ontario is misleading. Wholesale electricity prices – the only part of the bill that is affected by the cost of generation – in Ontario are actually higher than the cost of new firmed renewable energy in Victoria and Queensland.
A more relevant comparison may be the ongoing construction of the large Hinkley C generator in the UK. It was initially expected to open in 2017 and cost about A$34bn. That has now been pushed out to 2031, and up to A$89bn.
Will using more gas until nuclear comes online cut costs?
There is no evidence it will.
Gas is the most expensive form of electricity generation currently used in the National Electricity Market, connecting the five eastern states and the ACT.
The price of gas is set on the international market – what fossil fuel companies can get by selling the gas in Asia. Nearly all Australian gas is exported. Opening a couple of new gas fields is not likely to materially change this.
Currently, gas is used in “peaking” plants that are turned on only when needed, at times of high demand. This is expected to continue for at least the next couple of decades. Gas-fired power provided less than 5% of total generation last year.
The Coalition has not explained how it would get more gas into the electricity grid. Would taxpayers pay to build several new gas power plants? It has also not explained how the resulting power could be as cheap as renewable energy.
Will the Coalition’s plan be ‘cleaner’, as it claims?
No. Using more gas, less renewable energy and extending the life of coal-fired power plants will increase Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Coalition admits this. It wants to abandon the country’s 2030 emissions target and allow significantly more heat-trapping pollution while arguing it is still committed to net zero by 2050.
Could Australia have nuclear energy by 2035?
Again, no evidence has been released to explain how this would be possible. The experience in developed democracies internationally is that it would take much longer.
The Coalition says if it decided to build SMRs there could be “two establishment projects” in place by 2035. If it opts for large-scale plants it says first power would be in 2037.
That’s just the technology challenge. The Coalition would also have to get legislation through both houses of federal parliament to overturn a nuclear energy ban. Labor and most of the crossbench oppose lifting the ban, and the Coalition is 20 seats short of a majority in the lower house and hasn’t had a majority in the Senate since 2007.
It would also need to persuade three states that ban nuclear energy – and remain strongly committed to their current position – to change their laws.
Should Australia go nuclear? Why Peter Dutton’s plan could be an atomic failure – video
Have renewables caused a big increase in power bills?
No. It has a much smaller effect than factors related to fossil fuels.
Tony Wood, the energy and climate change program director for the Grattan Institute, says there was a 20% jump in wholesale electricity costs last year for four reasons: the war in Ukraine pushing up the price of gas; gas shortages; outages at ageing coal power plants reducing competition; and extreme weather causing flooding at coalmines. Prices have since started to come back down.
The renewable energy in the system has a smaller effect on price as the cost of incentive schemes is passed on, but it also helps reduce costs by increasing capacity and competition in the power grid.
The coal-fired power plants in the grid are ageing, increasingly have units offline and need to be replaced. Evidence from government agencies and most independent experts is that renewable energy plus firming is the best path to an affordable, reliable, clean grid.
Is it true that “Labor can’t keep the lights on today”?
No. The lights are still on.
Coalition MPs making this claim were referring to the findings of Aemo’s “electricity statement of opportunities” report, which was portrayed as warning blackouts were imminent.
This misrepresents what the statement does. It is a message to the industry about how much more generation will be needed over time. This year’s statement found there could be reliability gaps in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria unless there was faster deployment of renewable energy and batteries.
This is consistent with other warnings that investment has slowed and needs to accelerate. But Aemo did not say blackouts were inevitable, or that renewable energy would cause them.
Is it true that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables?
No – again, based on evidence from experts and industry.
The energy and economic transformation is challenging whatever technology is used. But the electrons are the same, regardless of the source.
Industry leaders have repeatedly welcomed renewable energy investment. Rio Tinto this year signed what it called Australia’s largest renewable energy power purchase agreement to run its operations in Gladstone.
BlueScope Steel applauded the creation of an offshore windfarm zone in the Illawarra, saying it had the “potential to supply significant quantities of renewable energy to help underpin BlueScope’s decarbonisation of iron and steelmaking in Australia”.
Aemo has repeatedly found an optimal future power grid, including one that would power new green industries, would run on more than 90% renewable energy.
Other countries, including those with some nuclear power, have similar goals. Both the US and Germany are targeting 80% renewable energy by 2030.
=============================================
The Coalition says the rest of the G20 is powering ahead with nuclear – it’s just not true
Adam Morton, The Guardian, 25 June 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/25/the-coalition-talks-so-much-about-its-nuclear-energy-plan-but-provides-so-little-evidence
So much has been said by the Coalition about what nuclear energy could do for Australia, with so little evidence to back it up, that it can be hard to keep up with the claims.
The key assertion by Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien is that nuclear would lead to a “cheaper, cleaner and consistent” electricity supply. None of this has been supported.
Not cheaper: the available evidence suggests both nuclear and gas-fired electricity – which Dutton says we would need a lot more of – would be more expensive for Australian consumers than the currently proposed mix of renewable energy, batteries, hydro, new transmission lines and limited amounts of gas.
Not cleaner: stringing out the life of old coal plants and adding gas would increase heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.
Not more consistent: the Coalition is proposing a small post-2040 nuclear industry that, even in a best-case-scenario, is likely to provide only a fraction of Australia’s electricity. It wants less solar and wind, but has not explained how this would help keep the lights on as coal plants shut.
There has been less attention on the Coalition’s repeated suggestion that Australia is the only one of the world’s top 20 economies that either doesn’t have or hasn’t signed up to nuclear energy.
It’s a point that has been raised to imply a bigger point: that nuclear energy is flourishing elsewhere and Australia is out on a limb by not having it.
Let’s test that.
Germany, the world’s third biggest economy, shut its remaining nuclear plants in April last year, following through on a commitment after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan to accelerate its shift away from atomic power. It was the end of a nuclear power industry that had operated since the 1960s.
Germany is also using less coal power – it is at its lowest level in decades – and instead backing renewable energy. It has an 80% renewables target for 2030.
Italy, Europe’s third biggest economy, also had a nuclear industry from the 1960s, but shut its plants in 1990 after a referendum. Its current right-wing government has suggested it would like to re-open the industry. It hasn’t yet.
Germany and Italy are connected to the European power grid, which gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear energy, mostly from France’s decades-old plants. But to suggest either is a “nuclear country” is to stretch the truth to breaking point.
Peter Dutton outlines timeline of Coalition’s plan for nuclear power rollout – video
Indonesia has toyed with the idea of nuclear energy since opening an experimental reactor in 1965, but nothing has been developed. A US company has signed an MoU to study “developing a thorium molten salt reactor for either power generation or marine vehicle propulsion”, and Indonesian officials say they expect nuclear to play a small role in a future grid dominated by renewable energy. But no plants are under construction and the regulatory work to establish an industry has not been done.
Saudi Arabia also has no nuclear plants. It has been considering developing an industry for about 15 years and invited bids to build two large nuclear plants to help replace fossil fuels. But it is mostly backing renewables and has set a goal of 50% of electricity coming from solar by 2030.
Counting Australia, that means five of the G20 has no nuclear industry and attempts to change that are, at best, at an early stage.
That’s not necessarily a good thing. The evidence suggests nuclear energy will be needed for the world to eradicate fossil fuels, especially in places that do not have Australia’s extraordinary access to renewable energy resources. Every country will have to find its own way.
But it is evidence that the Coalition’s claim that nuclear energy is “used by 19 of the 20 biggest economies”, as Dutton put it last week, is misleading.
The data from an annual statistical review by the Energy Institute tells us there is no global wave of nuclear energy investment or construction. Global generation peaked in 2006, dipped after the catastrophe in Japan and has more or less flatlined since.
Electricity generated from solar and wind, on the other hand, has soared from a near zero base at the turn of the millennium to now be more than 50% greater than the output from nuclear.
Despite some perceptions, the global growth in electricity from renewables since 2010 has also been greater than the growth in fossil fuel generation. The problem for people and the planet is that electricity from coal and gas is still growing at all.
Nuclear might seem ideal on paper to replace them, but the reality is much more difficult, especially in developed democracies.
Renewable energy is already providing nearly 40% of electricity in the Australian national grid
Four have been hit by substantial delays and cost overruns. In each case, construction has taken more than twice as long as initially forecast. The price tags have ended up being somewhere between double and six times initial estimates.
One, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3, came online last year, 21 years after it was announced and 13 years after it was expected to be operational. The other three – Flamanville in France, Vogtle in the US, and Hinkley Point C in the UK – are expected to take between 18 and 24 years from announcement to generation.
A fifth large project at the Virgil C Summer plant in South Carolina was cancelled in 2017 after more than A$13bn had been spent when it became too expensive to justify.
Small modular nuclear reactors, which the Coalition also included in its announcement, do not exist in any commercial sense.
The Coalition’s argument in response to this evidence is that Australia needs these technologies, urgently. And that they would be cheap.
Out on the ground, renewable energy is already providing nearly 40% of electricity in the Australian national grid. The rollout is proving challenging due to problems with planning, grid connections and getting construction deals signed.
But some of the country’s best energy analysts say solar and wind energy have not driven the spike in power bills in recent years. And the Australian Energy Market Operator has found renewables plus firming support can meet the country’s baseload electricity demand – that is, the minimum generation needed – at the lowest cost possible.
It found it when the Coalition was in power, and has found it under Labor. Perhaps we should just get on with it.
=============================================
Dutton’s claim about G20 nuclear energy use doesn’t add up
William Summers, 5 July 2024, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/duttons-claim-about-g20-nuclear-energy-use-doesnt-add-up/
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Australia is the only G20 nation that doesn’t use nuclear power.
OUR VERDICT
Misleading. Five other G20 nations don’t generate nuclear power, and two of those don’t use it.
AAP FACTCHECK – Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claims Australia is the only country not to use nuclear energy out of the world’s 20 largest economies.
This is misleading. Five other nations in the top 20 – Germany, Italy, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia – do not generate nuclear energy.
Germany, Italy and Turkiye import very small amounts of electricity generated from nuclear sources, but Indonesia and Saudi Arabia don’t consume any nuclear power.
Australia is the only top 20 economy that doesn’t generate, import or have a plan to do so.
Mr Dutton has made the claim at least four times in interviews about the coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia without clarifying that he’s counting countries planning to use nuclear power among those that are actually using it.
Mr Dutton said nuclear power was “used by 19 of the 20 biggest economies in the world” at a June 18 press conference in NSW.
He again claimed that of the top 20 economies in the world, “Australia is the only one that doesn’t have nuclear” in a June 20 interview on Sky News.
That same day, the opposition leader spoke out about how Australia could benefit from nuclear power “as 19 of the world’s top 20 economies have done” in an ABC News Breakfast interview.
Mr Dutton again said Australia was the only one of the 20 biggest economies that “doesn’t operate” nuclear at a press conference on July 5.
When asked to clarify his claims, the opposition leader’s spokeswoman told AAP FactCheck that he’s counting countries that have nuclear power and those “taking steps towards embracing nuclear”.
He also said Australia was the only G20 member that didn’t use or plan to use nuclear power in an ABC TV interview on April 21.
The G20 is a global forum for countries with large economies. Despite its name, the G20 includes only 19 nations, plus the African Union and the European Union. Spain is invited to the G20 as a permanent guest.
It’s unclear if Mr Dutton is referring to the G20 countries plus Spain, or the 20 largest nations by gross domestic product, as he’s used both interchangeably.
However, AAP FactCheck has analysed the former because the nations that don’t generate nuclear power and the nations that only import small amounts of it are exactly the same for both groupings, as per World Bank 2023 GDP data.
Divide and squander: Dutton wants seven nuclear power plants, the first by 2035
Giles Parkinson, June 19, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/divide-and-squander-dutton-wants-seven-nuclear-power-plants-the-first-by-2035/
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has finally revealed the federal Coalition’s nuclear plan, or at least bits of it.
The headline is that seven plants are proposed at current and former coal fired power stations, with the first to be built within a decade, despite the lack of any support from state governments, the site’s owners or the energy industry in general, and its huge costs.
The plan was outlined by Dutton and other senior members of the Coalition at a press conference in Sydney on Wednesday morning, and the pitch opened with an outright lie: Dutton’s claim that the Australian Energy Market Operator says renewables will lead to “a greater likelihood of blackouts and brownouts.”
In fact, AEMO has made it very, very clear that the opposite it true, and that the biggest and most costly danger to Australia’s energy security is keeping coal-fired power stations online, which is the Coalition’s stated intention.
But the Coalition nuclear strategy is not based on facts. It’s a populist appear to votes and the media release and presser were accordingly strong on rhetoric – and scare campaigns about the lights going out – and short on detail.
The sites targeted are Loy Yang in Victoria, Liddell and Mt Piper in the NSW Hunter Valley, Callide and Tarong in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia and Collie in Western Australia.
Dutton says the Coalition is looking at a mixture of small modular reactors – in South Australia and Western Australia – or larger plants such as the APR1400 or the AP1000 – the model whose cost overruns sent Westinghouse to bankruptcy in the US in 2017 – in the other states.
Dutton says the SMRs could be producing electricity by 2035 – even though no commercial SMR yet exists anywhere in the world, or even has planning approval, or even a licence.
The Coalition’s timeline assumes getting a project up and running within a decade of winning power in the next federal election, despite the absence of a regulatory regime, the lack of industry expertise, and federal and state bans in NSW, Queensland and Victoria.
None of those states support nuclear power, not even Queensland LNP leader and likely next premier David Crisafulli.
The Coalition says the plants will be Commonwealth owned and taxpayer funded, which makes nonsense of Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor’s claim that no subsidies are needed. Detailed analysis from Australia’s CSIRO, Lazard and BloombergNEF all point to the technology being the most expensive in the world.
Dutton then moved quickly on to the next lie, that Labor is promising 28,000 km of new transmission lines by 2030. It isn’t, AEMO’s Integrated System Plan foresees around 5,000kms by 2030, a third of which has already been built.
Lie number three, published in the Coalition media release, is that “of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards using it.”
Again, not true. Germany has dumped it, so too has Italy. Others are talking about it but not moving very fast. France is significantly reducing its share of nuclear and other countries such as Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland have discussed phasing out nuclear power due to high cost and waste issues, according to Dr Asma Aziz, from Edith Cowan University.
Lie number 4: That wind turbines have a life span of 19 years. One of the country’s oldest wind farms has just announced it will now close in 2033, 30 years after it was built. New wind farms have a life span of at least 35 years.
Dutton’s contention that his nuclear plans require no new transmission is also contentious. The 1.4 gigawatt units cited in the media release are double the size of any other unit ever built in Australia’s main grid and will require a significant upgrade of transmission and back-up capacity in case of a trip or outage.
Other investors, including the site owners, have plans for that transmission. In Collie, for instance, two of the country’s biggest batteries are already under construction, and more are planned. There likely won’t be room for either a big nuclear power station at the site, or the transmission capacity to transport it to where the power is needed.
However, Dutton’s position is not an appeal to the energy industry, but an attempt to divide the electorate – with the promise of “24/7” clean power, lower bills, no blackouts – designed as a populist appeal, however unrealistic and fantastic the claims might be.
Industry believes – as iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest pointed out on Tuesday – that the nuclear plan will simply squander Australia’s wind and solar advantage, and threaten its exports.
“The Coalition’s nuclear policy is a recipe for delay and skyrocketing energy bills,” the Clean Energy Councils Kane Thornton said on Wednesday.
“Australia has no nuclear power industry, so building new reactors would take at least 20 years and cost six times more. This is a policy that would deliver nothing for at least 20 years, result in much higher power prices and risk the lights going out as coal power stations continue to close.”
The Smart Energy Council agreed: “The Federal Opposition’s nuclear strategy is in reality a plan to keep burning coal – this is a hugely expensive CoalKeeper policy,” said SEC chief executive John Grimes.
“Nuclear energy will not arrive in Australia until 2040 at the latest, so this is all about extending the life of highly polluting coal-fired power stations at taxpayer expense.
“Everyone knows nuclear equals higher power bills and higher carbon pollution by extending the life of coal-fired power stations. This so-called energy policy is for the fossil fuel lobby, not for Australians, or the planet.”
Federal energy minister noted that the Coalition plan had no costing, no gigawatts and no detail. “It’s a joke, but a serious joke because it threatens Australia’s renewable transition,” Bowen said.
=============================================
Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up?
Mike Foley, 24 June 2024, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-debate-is-getting-heated-but-whose-energy-plan-stacks-up-20240624-p5jo45.html
The Coalition’s nuclear power policy is less than a week old, but the political debate about Australia’s energy future has been raging since. The opposition’s claims about both its policy and the renewables-focused government plan have prompted plenty of questions about their veracity.
We take a look through the biggest of those talking points to see whether they stack up.
*** Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ plan will cost more than $1 trillion: False
The opposition says it will cost more than $1 trillion for the Albanese government to reach its target of boosting renewables to 82 per cent of the electricity grid by 2030. Currently, about 40 per cent of the grid is renewable electricity.
Nationals Leader David Littleproud on Sunday attributed the numbers to Net Zero Australia: a think tank of academics from University of Melbourne, University of Queensland and Princeton University.
The think tank calculated the estimated cost of reaching net zero across the entire economy, not just the electricity grid.
They found that it would cost more than $1 trillion by 2030 and up to $9 trillion by 2050, largely driven by private investment. The figure includes a range of actions, from integrating electric vehicles into the transport fleet to heavy industry, such as smelting switching from gas to electric power.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts that the cost of reaching 82 per cent renewables, again largely driven by private investment in wind and solar farms and transmission lines, will cost $121 billion in today’s money.
The Albanese government has also committed $20 billion to underwrite transmission-line construction and has set up a fund called the Capacity Investment Scheme, estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars. It will underwrite new renewable projects, and if private investors fail to achieve forecast returns, taxpayers could be on the hook to subsidise operations but will get a cut of the profits when they exceed a set threshold.
*** Nuclear energy will deliver cheaper power bills: False
Dutton said on Wednesday last week his plan would “see Australia achieve our three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”.
The opposition has committed to release the costings of their plan before the next election.
Many experts disagree, arguing nuclear power delivers the most expensive form of electricity.
The same report cited by the opposition for a $1 trillion cost of the renewables rollout said there is “no role” for nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.
“We only see a potential role for nuclear electricity generation if its cost falls sharply and the growth of renewables is constrained,” Net Zero Australia’s report in July last year said.
Internationally recognised financial services firm Lazard also found renewable energy sources continued to be much cheaper than nuclear. It said onshore wind was the cheapest, with a cost between $US25 and $US73 per megawatt hour. The second cheapest was large-scale solar at between $US29 and $US92. Nuclear was the most expensive, at between $US145 and $US222.
The CSIRO found the cheapest electricity would come from a grid that draws 90 per cent of its power from renewables, which would supply electricity for a cost of between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030 – factoring in $40 billion in transmission lines and batteries to back up renewables.
CSIRO calculated that a large-scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040.
*** The renewables rollout needs 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines: False
“Labor has promised 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires, there’s no transparency on where that will go, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we don’t believe in that model,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said last week.
The AEMO releases a document each year called the Integrated System Plan, after consulting private industry, that details a road map of what the most efficient energy system will look like in coming years, including new infrastructure, up to 2050.
The Integrated System Plan includes directives set by policymakers, like the Albanese government’s commitment to reach 82 per cent of energy generation coming from renewables by 2030, and to hit net zero emissions by 2030.
The most recent plan, from January, says around 5000 kilometres of transmission lines are needed in the next 10 years to deliver the Albanese government’s goals, including 4000 kilometres of new lines and upgrading 1000 kilometres of existing lines. AEMO said 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines will be needed for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The 28,000-kilometre figure cited by the opposition resembles the 26,000 kilometres of transmission AEMO said would be needed by 2050 if Australia was to transform its economy to a clean energy export powerhouse, including large-scale production of green hydrogen and decarbonisation of other industrial processes.
*** The first reactor would be built before 2037: Questionable
The opposition says if elected, they would build a nuclear reactor and have it hooked up to the grid within 12 years of forming a government.
Its nuclear energy policy document, released last week, states that depending on what technology it chooses to prioritise, a large-scale reactor would start generating electricity by 2037 and a small modular reactor (SMR) by 2035. SMRs are a developing design not yet in commercial production.
This rollout would be as quick as anywhere in the world. The United Arab Emirates has set the global pace. It announced in 2008 that it would build four reactors under contract from Korean company KEPCO. Construction began in 2012, and the first reactor connected to the grid in 2020.
There are significant differences between the UAE and Australia. The former is a dictatorship without comparable labour laws or planning regulations that relies on cheap imported labour, whereas the latter has rigorous workforce protections, environmental laws and planning processes.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said a Coalition government would establish a Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority that would assess each of the seven nuclear sites it has identified and determine what specific type of reactor would be built where, while also committing to two and half years of community consultation. A new safety and management regime would need to be developed, and parliament would have to repeal the current federal ban on nuclear energy within this timeframe.
If the Coalition forms government in May next year, following the consultation phase, it assumes construction could begin in late 2027 and would take 10 years for a large-scale reactor. That is far quicker than other Western nations have achieved recently.
The UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear plant began construction in 2018 and is not expected to be completed until at least 2030. The only reactor now under construction in France is the Flamanville EPR. Construction began in 2007 and is currently incomplete. A reactor at Olkiluoto Island, Finland, began in 2005 and was completed in 2022.
*** The annual waste from a reactor fits into a Coke can: False
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claim that the annual waste generated by an SMR amounts to the size of a Coke can is incorrect, experts say, with such facilities likely to generate multiple tonnes of high-level radioactive waste each year.
“If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year,” Dutton said on Tuesday.
Multiple experts told this masthead a 450-megawatt reactor referenced by Dutton would generate many tonnes of waste a year.
Large-scale reactors, which have been deployed in 32 countries around the world, have a typical capacity of 1000 megawatts and generate about 30 tonnes of used fuel a year. This includes high-level radioactive waste toxic to humans for tens of thousands of years and weapons-grade plutonium.
SMRs are still under commercial development, and expert opinion is divided over whether they would produce more or less waste per unit of energy compared to a large reactor.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science said it was safe to assume an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology, but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said.
Mike Foley is the climate and energy correspondent for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
=============================================
‘Cheaper, cleaner, more consistent’: Do Dutton’s claims on nuclear stack up?
By Mike Foley, 19 June 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-cleaner-more-consistent-do-dutton-s-claims-on-nuclear-stack-up-20240329-p5fg66.html
Australia’s climate wars have gone nuclear as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton brands the Albanese government’s plan to ramp up renewables as expensive and risky to power supply.
On Wednesday, Dutton released his plan to build seven nuclear reactors across the country on the sites of old coal-fired power stations. His six-page policy manifesto promises a “bold, visionary” nuclear program that will provide cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy, while lowering prices for families and businesses.
Here is a fact check of the opposition’s key claims.
Will it be cheaper?
Dutton said his plan was cheaper and would lower household power prices. But he will not release the costings until a later date, which means it’s not possible to examine its commercial viability.
Experts have already questioned whether nuclear energy can deliver cheaper power. The Coalition has mounted an argument against renewables by saying that the cost of new transmission lines, which link wind and solar farms into the grid, is not included when the cost of renewable power is compared with other forms of generation.
The CSIRO’s GenCost report on electricity generation renewables, which factors in $40 billion in transmission lines and batteries, says they deliver cheaper power than nuclear energy.
The CSIRO found the cheapest electricity would come from a grid that draws 90 per cent of its power from renewables, which would supply electricity for a cost of between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030.
They calculated that a large-scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040. Small modular reactors are even more expensive – between $171 and $366 per megawatt hour by 2040.
Internationally recognised financial services firm Lazard also found renewable energy sources continued to be much cheaper than nuclear. It said onshore wind was the cheapest, with a cost of between $US25 and $US73 per megawatt hour. The second cheapest was utility-sized solar at between $US29 and $US92. Nuclear was the most expensive, at between $US145 and $US222.
How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?
Dutton has promised to build two reactors before 2037. He said small modular reactors, which are not yet in commercial production, could be completed by 2035, while traditional large-scale reactors could be in operation by 2037.
Most experts say this timeline is too ambitious and it would take far longer. This is because of challenges such as establishing a safety regime, importing a skilled workforce to build the plants, and preventing any cost blowouts.
New legislation would also be required to legalise the industry, after the Howard government banned nuclear energy generation in 1998.
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has forecast longer construction times than those envisaged by the opposition. He said it would take at least 20 years for a large-scale or small modular reactor to start generating electricity for the grid.
However, Professor Andrew Stuchbery, head of physics at the Australian National University, said both China and the United Arab Emirates had built nuclear plants within a decade.
“China do it all the time … The UAE is an interesting example because they started absolutely from scratch, and they built them [reactors] in a bit under 10 years,” Stuchbery said. “If you look at some of the reactor projects in Europe and the US, they have been subject to delays, and the reason for that is that they had lost supply lines, they had lost the expertise in the country.”
The World Nuclear Association says the current global median build time for a nuclear plant is about nine years.
Can the Coalition keep a lid on cost blowouts?
Experts warn the potential for cost blowouts is a major risk for the opposition’s nuclear plan.
Dutton said an opposition government would build nuclear plants with a Commonwealth-owned corporation, such as Snowy Hydro. The Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project has blown out from an initial cost of $2 billion to $12 billion, while the construction deadline has been extended by seven years, to 2028.
The UK’s flagship nuclear project, Hinkley C, has been beset by delays and cost blowouts. In 2017, the French-owned contractor EdF said it would be completed within a decade for $15 billion. But construction delays and technical problems have pushed out the estimated price to more than $90 billion, and the start date to about 2031.
The United States’ most recent nuclear power project, at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, sought to double the plant’s capacity with two more reactors. Design began in 2005 and it was initially costed at $US13 billion, with a 2023 completion date. While the first reactor came online last year, it cost $US34 billion.
The UAE had more success with timing. It awarded a contract to South Korean company KEPCO in 2009 to build four nuclear reactors, estimated to be worth up to $US30 billion. Construction of the first reactor began in 2012 and was completed in 2020, with the other three also taking less than nine years to complete.
Does a green grid need nuclear?
The Coalition’s policy manifesto says shifting to nuclear “will keep an always-on source of 24/7 baseload power in the system to drive prices down and keep the lights on while we decarbonise”.
The energy market is made up of retailers, who buy electricity supply in short blocks around the clock, and generators, who supply the power. These generators compete on price and the cheapest always wins.
Renewables currently supply about 40 per cent of the grid’s electricity, and the Albanese government is aiming to have renewables supply 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), which manages the day-to-day operations of the energy grid, has forecast that more than 80 per cent of coal power will shut down by 2032, and all of it will be gone by 2038.
The advocates for both nuclear and coal power argue that continuous electricity generation, also known as baseload power, is needed for stable, secure energy supply. They argue renewables are subject to events such as wind and solar droughts, while nuclear plants are designed to run around the clock.
The flipside is that nuclear plants cannot be turned off at short notice and could spend a lot of time operating at a loss. That’s because the large amount of solar power in Australia can often drop daytime wholesale power prices to $0.
The Albanese government cites the AEMO, which says the grid does not need a new source of baseload power.
The operator has said wind and solar, paired with batteries and pumped hydro dams, will be able to supply up to 90 per cent of our power needs in the future, while rapid-response gas or hydrogen-fired generation plants could be used in short bursts when needed.
Can the Coalition build reactors if nuclear energy is banned?
Dutton’s nuclear ambitions have already started a fight with state governments and raised questions about how a federal Coalition government would gain access to the sites of old coal plants to build nuclear reactors.
Dutton said he would create a Commonwealth-owned corporation, which could apply a national interest test and compulsorily acquire land or reactor sites. But he would still need state approval for project development. As well as overturning legislated bans on nuclear energy at the federal level, he will need to overcome state laws in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
In NSW, Premier Chris Minns said he would not remove the state’s nuclear ban, but the Coalition opposition said they were open to it. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan is opposed to nuclear energy, and Opposition Leader John Pesutto said his party had no plans to introduce it.
In Western Australia, Premier Roger Cook has said “no one in Collie wants to see nuclear power established or constructed in their community”, while South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said nuclear energy would make electricity more expensive. In Queensland, Labor Premier Steven Miles and the state’s Liberal National Party leader, David Crisafulli, have both rejected Dutton’s nuclear plans.
Dutton said the assets would be owned by the federal government, which would form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies tasked with building and operating them. The owners of some of the coal plant sites targeted for nuclear development in NSW and Victoria – including AGL, Origin, EnergyAustralia and Alinta – have previously said they have no plans to develop nuclear energy in Australia.
=============================================
Canada / Ontario:
Coalition’s taxpayer-funded nuclear con a road to ruin, Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 25 June 2024, Australian Financial Review, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/coalition-s-taxpayer-funded-nuclear-con-a-road-to-ruin-20240624-p5jo3j
In Canada, which opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien admiringly cites, the last nuclear plant was approved in 1977 and commissioned 15 years later in 1993, five years late. The original capital cost of $C3.9 billion blew out 400 per cent to $C14.4 billion, including a $C600 million refurbishment immediately on commissioning, and it now needs another $C12 billion ($13.2 billion) refurbishment. …
In short, while nuclear may be part of the energy mix in some countries with a long-established history of deploying the technology – in Canada, for example, it was 14 per cent of total generation in 2023 (down from 16 per cent a decade ago), while renewables are 65 per cent and increasing – it is simply not viable here.
=============================================
Without a massive grid upgrade, the Coalition’s nuclear plan faces a high-voltage hurdle
Asma Aziz, Senior Lecturer in Power Engineering, Edith Cowan University
8 July 2024, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/without-a-massive-grid-upgrade-the-coalitions-nuclear-plan-faces-a-high-voltage-hurdle-233458
Keeping the lights on in Australia is a complex task. Enough capacity must be ensured everywhere in the country, at every moment. Surplus in one location won’t solve shortages in another, unless we have the transmission infrastructure to transmit electricity between them.
The transmission network largely consists of high-voltage lines and towers, as well as transformers which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another.
Australia’s transmission network is one of the oldest and longest in the world. As coal stations close and more renewable energy is built, the task of upgrading the system becomes even more pressing. So formidable is the challenge, it’s one of the biggest roadblocks Australia faces in reaching its crucial goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Coalition’s plan for seven nuclear energy plants in Australia further complicates the task. A clear policy direction for Australia’s electricity system is urgently needed.
Lots of work to do
In technical terms, transmission congestion occurs when an element on the network, such as a high-voltage power line or transformer, reaches capacity and cannot carry more electricity.
Think of it as like traffic in a city. During rush hour, bottlenecks occur when there are more vehicles than the roads can handle. During times of peak electricity demand, electricity lines and transformers can also reach their limits. Exceeding the limits of the network can damage equipment and lead to power outages.
Between now and 2050, Australia’s electricity consumption will surge. We’ll need to draw power from increasingly diverse and far-flung sources. Coal power plants, typically located near large population centres, will close. Energy generation from solar and wind farms, usually located in regional and remote areas, will increase.
Importantly, we must make the distinction between electricity capacity and whether that electricity is “dispatchable”, or can be released on demand. That’s one reason why we need new transmission lines – to move electricity around the system as needed. The sooner we can build this capability, the quicker and cheaper our energy transition will be.
So far this decade, 490 kilometres of new transmission lines have reportedly been added to the National Electricity Market, which serves the east coast and South Australia. A further 2,090 km of transmission lines are progressing from the planning phase to the construction phase.
There’s still a lot of work to do: around 10,000 km of new transmission lines is needed by 2050. Western Australia’s main electricity network also needs more than 4,000 km of new high-capacity transmission lines.
A looming problem
The network’s ability to carry electricity is influenced by several factors. They include weather conditions, patterns of electricity generation and demand, the capacity of individual elements such as transmission lines and transformers, and their reliability.
Congested transmission can cause fluctuations in power prices. If cheaper electricity cannot be transported to where it’s needed, more expensive generators are dispatched to meet demand. This increases the price of electricity for both energy retailers and consumers. It can also lead to higher prices in some areas than others and poses financial risks for energy providers.
Transmission congestion in Australia is a looming problem. For example, South Australian transmission company ElectraNet forecasts rising congestion on that state’s network due to planned expansions of electricity generators, peaking in the late 2020s and 2030s.
What’s more, planning studies have identified ageing assets in Queensland’s transmission network, requiring new routes to manage constraints and ensure reliable supply.
Where does nuclear fit in?
All this has implications for the Coalition’s nuclear plan, if it comes to fruition.
The CSIRO and others say a nuclear power plant of any size would not be operational in Australia until after 2040.
If transmission lines are congested at that future point, nuclear power plants may not be able to send all their electricity to the grid.
Nuclear plants are expensive to build and run. But they typically generate electricity continuously, helping to offset these costs. If the plants can’t feed into the grid, or can’t sell their electricity at competitive prices, they may lose revenue and struggle to cover their costs, affecting their long-term viability.
The continuous high output of nuclear plants also helps them run efficiently. Frequently adjusting energy output leads to more wear, lower efficiency and reduced energy production over time.
Constraining nuclear output can have broader repercussions, too. In France, for instance, nuclear output is at a 30-year low, forcing the country to import electricity and prepare for potential blackouts. The reactors are offline for maintenance, not due to transmission issues. But the example highlights the consequences when nuclear energy is taken out of the mix for any reason.
Clarity is needed
Finally, the increasing share of renewable energy in our electricity grid means there’s no guarantee transmission capacity will be available for nuclear energy.
As South Australia’s energy minister Tom Koutsantonis noted on X, this poses challenges for the Coalition’s plan to build a nuclear plant at the site of an old coal station at Port Augusta and use existing transmission infrastructure:
The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true. The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines, the exact thing the LNP are complaining about.
So what’s the upshot of all this? Transmission infrastructure is a thorny policy problem, and divergent views among policymakers about energy policy only add to the challenges.
A clear direction on the future of Australia’s electricity grid, including transmission infrastructure, is essential. Without it, the energy transition will be slower and more expensive.
=============================================
Dutton’s nuclear plan contains a fib, but there’s also a fact in its favour
David Crowe, 21 June 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-contains-a-fib-but-there-s-also-a-fact-in-its-favour-20240619-p5jn1s.html
The car park at Murray’s Beach, on the southern head of Jervis Bay, is a monument to Australian visions about nuclear energy. The clearing in the coastal scrub, about three hours’ drive from Sydney, was meant to house a nuclear power plant in the 1970s, when Liberals in Canberra wanted to match the big projects of America and Europe.
That dream died when a Treasury analysis found the entire scheme would cost too much. The project was scrapped after Billy McMahon replaced John Gorton as prime minister in 1971, saving a beautiful bay and its residents from a project that looks, today, like utter madness.
That history sets up an essential reality check for Peter Dutton after he unveiled his big idea for seven nuclear power stations to be funded by the Commonwealth. The opposition leader has to reckon with the hard fact, as solid as a nuclear cooling tower, that other energy sources are cheaper.
The choice was easy in the 1970s because coal was cheap and could be burnt with no qualms about the climate. The decision is much harder today when coal-fired power stations are closing down. There is no consensus on the solution, only a new phase of the climate wars.
Dutton, however, has one big fact that works in his favour. The energy grid needs new sources of reliable power to make up for the end of coal. If the country cannot build enough renewable power with storage, something else must be added to the grid. Those who oppose nuclear have to show that other energy sources can fill the gap.
How big is the gap? The Clean Energy Regulator, one of the federal authorities managing the changes, said last month that Australia added about 5.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity to the electricity grid last year. This sounds impressive. Unfortunately, the regulator says we need to add at least seven gigawatts every year to achieve the country’s stated goals by 2030.
There appears to be some good news. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has approved 51 renewable energy projects since Labor took office – more in two years than the Coalition approved in the preceding nine. In theory, these wind, solar and pumped-hydro schemes would add 8.4 gigawatts to the grid. Unfortunately, there is no matching list to show how many have been built.
The Grattan Institute warns that power shortfalls are “creeping ever closer” because new investment is not arriving fast enough. Power outages are almost entirely due to network failures – 96.7 per cent of the problem, it says – but we need more energy generation as soon as possible. Some renewable companies blame slow state approvals, especially in NSW.
The truth is that construction is too slow and costs are too high – and the humiliating proof is stuck in the rock beneath the Snowy Mountains. That’s where Florence, the tunnelling machine, has stalled the grand plan for Snowy 2.0 to add renewable power to the grid. Meant to cost $2 billion, the project is now tipped to cost at least $12 billion and finish six years late.
Australia needs a better debate about where it finds more energy. For now, Dutton offers only a vague plan and skates over essential questions with a big fib about cost. He claims the government’s energy policies will cost $1.2 trillion, or even $1.5 trillion, and that this will be passed on to households to fund the investment in solar, wind and other projects. “Our proposal will cost a fraction of that cost,” he says.
Those numbers seem plucked out of the air. Tony Wood, an energy industry expert at the Grattan Institute, is not sure what the $1.5 trillion could possibly include. “Just throwing a number out there is pretty ordinary policy, let alone politics,” he says. The number also sets up an utterly false comparison.
It is true that Australia will pay a substantial cost over many decades to build new electricity supplies, whether they are wind turbines or rooftop solar panels or gas-fired power stations. But it is not true to suggest the Coalition can do away with that investment just because it commits to nuclear. It would be adding nuclear to what is already being planned, and perhaps replacing the need for some wind and solar.
Dutton also makes a flawed claim – that Labor has a “renewables only” policy for the grid. In fact, the government assumes that gas-fired power stations will be used over the long term to add reliability to the grid when solar and wind cannot generate enough electricity. Labor is just too divided about gas to talk openly about using it for decades.
Wood likens gas to Judi Dench, the actor who can bring a film alive with a supporting role. “She can walk on for a short time and leave to huge applause,” he says.
Right now, renewable projects supply almost 40 per cent of electricity across the grid on an annualised basis, and much more than this at peak times for wind and solar. Wood says it is possible to increase the annual figure beyond 70 per cent, or even higher, with the help of pumped hydro and batteries, but gas-fired power will be needed as well. He says it is totally wrong for Dutton to claim that renewables are responsible for higher electricity bills.
Green Energy Markets director Tristan Edis says there are ways to replace gas with clean fuel such as ethanol. He sees nuclear as a hugely expensive choice that would push up household costs.
Even so, there is a case to be made for nuclear. What if Australia cannot build enough renewable projects, with reliable storage or gas-fired power, in time to make up for those looming coal closures? That is when nuclear has to be an option. Voters will not accept power outages, so political leaders must have a back-up plan.
Ziggy Switkowski, the former nuclear physicist who ran Telstra and later chaired the NBN, says nuclear should be judged by the value it brings to the entire electricity grid with reliable baseload power. This is a nuanced argument for small modular reactors, for instance, to complement solar, wind, hydro, batteries and gas.
Australia has a huge challenge ahead. So far, Dutton has a feeble answer. As things stand, the most likely outcome from this nuclear debate is another monument like the car park at Murray’s Beach – a vision that turns into delusion.
There is, however, a debate to be had. There is also time for the opposition leader to give voters the details they deserve so they can vote for nuclear power if they choose.
David Crowe is chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
=============================================
Why the nuclear lobby makes stuff up about the cost of wind and solar
Giles Parkinson, RenewEconomy, 23 Oct 2019, https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-the-nuclear-lobby-makes-stuff-up-about-cost-of-wind-and-solar-46538/
An excerpt from Parkinson’s analysis is copied here:
“It is generally accepted in the energy industry that the cost of new nuclear is several times that of wind and solar, even when the latter are backed up by storage. The GenCost 2018 report from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) puts the cost of nuclear at two to three times the cost of “firmed renewables”.
“The nuclear lobby, however, has been insisting to the parliamentary inquiry that wind and solar are four to seven times the cost of nuclear, and to try and prove the point the lobby has been making such extraordinary and outrageous claims that it makes you wonder if anything else they say about nuclear – its costs and safety – can be taken seriously.
“RenewEconomy has been going through the 290-something submissions and reading the public hearing transcripts, and has been struck by one consistent theme from the pro-nuclear organisations and ginger groups: When it comes to wind, solar and batteries, they just make stuff up.
“A typical example is the company SMR Nuclear Technology – backed by the coal baron Trevor St Baker – which borrows some highly questionable analysis to justify its claim that going 100 per cent renewables would cost “four times” that of replacing coal with nuclear.
“It bases this on modelling by a consultancy called EPC, based on the south coast of NSW, apparently a husband and wife team, Robert and Linda Barr, who are also co-authors of “The essential veterinarian’s phone book”, a guide to vets on how to set up telephone systems.
“The EPC report admits to deliberately ignoring the anticipated cost reductions of wind and solar from AEMO’s 2018 integrated system plan. Even worse, the report dials in a completely absurd current cost of wind at A$157/MWh (before transmission costs), which is about three times the current cost in Australia, and A$117/MWh for solar, which is more than double.
The costs of wind and solar are not hard to verify. They are included in the GenCost report, in numerous pieces of analysis, and even in public announcements from companies involved, both buyers and sellers.”
See also: Giles Parkinson, 28 Oct 2022, ‘Dutton and Coalition still ignorant and deluded on battery storage and nuclear’, https://reneweconomy.com.au/dutton-and-coalition-still-ignorant-and-deluded-on-battery-storage-and-nuclear/
* Comparing costs of large reactors in the UK and US, and SMR cost estimates, with CSIRO estimates for firmed renewables, nuclear costs (large or small) would need to come down by two-thirds to be competitive with firmed renewables.
* Replacing Australia’s 21.3 gigawatts of coal plants with nuclear, large or small, would cost $500 billion to $650 billion (and much more to train a nuclear workforce etc. etc.)
90% wind and solar PV supply to the National Electricity Market including storage and transmission costs
100-143
89-128
——————>
Levelised cost of electricity review
A report prepared for the Clean Energy Council by Egis, a leading global consulting, construction and engineering firm. May 2024.
Key findings:
The research confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity.
The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.
Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available.
The economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid, in line with legislated targets. Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.
Includes these levelised cost figures (amongst others):
US$/MWh (A$/MWh)
Solar PV – Utility
29-92 (44-138)
Solar PV + storage – Utility
60-210 (90-315)
Wind ‒ onshore
27-72 (41-108)
Wind + storage ‒ onshore
45-133 (67-199)
Wind ‒ offshore
74-139 (111-208)
Nuclear
142-222 (213-333)
The nuclear cost is based on the Vogtle project in Georgia (the only nuclear project to begin and reach completion this century), assuming a capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 60–80 years.
——————>
Nuclear/SMR economics in a high-renewables grid
Apart from the practical constraints (not least the fact that they don’t exist), the economics of SMRs would go from bad to worse if using them to complement renewables. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, power from an SMR with a utilisation factor of 25% would cost around A$600 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
Likewise, an article co-authored by Steven Hamilton – assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and visiting fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the ANU – states:
“Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Labor sees nuclear power as a competitor to renewables. The Coalition sees nuclear power as a companion to renewables”.
“The trouble is that nuclear is a terrible companion to renewables. The defining characteristic of being “compatible” with renewables is the ability to scale up and down as needed to “firm” renewables.
“Even if we don’t build a single new wind farm, in order to replace coal in firming renewables, nuclear would need to operate at around 60 per cent average utilisation (like coal today) to keep capacity in reserve for peak demand. This alone would push the cost of nuclear beyond $225/MWh. To replace gas as well, the cost skyrockets beyond $340/MWh.”
Even if all that mattered was the cheapest possible energy that meets minimum levels of reliability and emissions, the Coalition’s plan fails.
June 23, 2024, Australian Financial Review, Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney
…
The numbers don’t stack up for nuclear
The CSIRO estimates the cost of 90 per cent renewables, with firming, transmission, and integration costs included, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on South Korean costs (roughly one-third of the US and Europe), a 60-year lifespan, a 60 per cent economic utilisation rate (as per coal today), and an eight-year build time (as per the global average), nuclear would cost $200 per megawatt hour – nearly double.
The same electrons delivered with the same reliability, just twice as expensive under what is a fairly optimistic scenario.
Opposition climate and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has raised two issues with the CSIRO’s assumptions for nuclear: first, lifespan (Ted says it should be 80 years); second, utilisation (Ted says it should be close to 100 per cent).
His first concern makes little difference. Thanks to the time value of money, extending the lifespan from 60 to 80 years reduces the cost above by just $4 per megawatt hour – or 2 per cent. His second concern misunderstands the Australian energy market.
Because the vast majority of nuclear costs are up-front capital, utilisation has a dramatic effect on economic viability. Even if nuclear were to supply 100 per cent of electricity, utilisation would not be 100 per cent because demand varies dramatically.
In France, where nuclear accounts for most of the supply, utilisation is just 70 per cent —and that’s with a big boost to utilisation as energy can be exported to countries to its east and west, which plainly Australia could not do.
Underutilisation then gets even worse as the supply of renewables increases. When competing with zero-marginal-cost renewables, nuclear must either decrease output (thus utilisation) or supply at negative prices (reducing economic viability, as with coal today).
Renewables already routinely produce more than half our electricity during the day and AEMO expects average renewables output to exceed 95 per cent (and up to 100 per cent at times) by 2035, when the Opposition plans the first nuclear plant to come online. In that environment, even the 70 per cent achieved in France would be wildly optimistic.
The same electrons delivered with the same reliability, just twice as expensive under what is a fairly optimistic scenario.
It’s worth noting that, even at 93 per cent utilisation (the highest ever achieved in the US where nuclear is a small share of supply), nuclear is still 25 per cent more expensive than renewables.
This is also where the opposition’s claim that nuclear will ensure system reliability falls apart. For nuclear, the goals of reliability and viability are fundamentally opposed. To bring nuclear closer to economic viability, it must play a minor role in the system to consistently run at full capacity, with nothing more to give when called upon.
A genuine reliability solution should be available when needed at minimum cost. Today, that means gas, batteries and pumped hydro. In 2050, it could also mean small modular nuclear reactors. But we have a quarter-century to wait and see if they become economically viable.
Are there uncertainties around the cost of firmed renewables? Independent analysis by Lazard and peer-reviewed academic research produce similar estimates to the CSIRO. We must make decisions today based on our best guess of the costs. But any concerns about delays, social license and cost blowouts are surely even greater under nuclear, and it starts at a 100% cost disadvantage before these even enter the picture.
If you need external validation of these basic economics, look no further than the opposition’s own announcement. Rather than lift the moratorium and allow private firms to supply nuclear energy if it’s commercially viable, the opposition has opted for government to be the owner and operator. A smoking gun of economic unviability if ever there were one.
In the face of an intractable productivity crisis, in which we must take every 10th of a percentage point of GDP we can get, choosing to pay more for electricity for no benefit whatsoever is unacceptable self-harm.
In these circumstances, the pragmatist should view the opposition’s plan as nothing more than a vanity project our economy cannot afford.
— Steven Hamilton is an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and Luke Heeney is a graduate researcher at the MIT Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
Experts predict major electricity price hikes if opposition proposal to slow rollout of large-scale renewable projects goes ahead
Adam Morton and Paul Karp, 21 June 2024, The Guardian
Australians’ annual household power bills could increase by hundreds of dollars, and up to $1,000, under a Coalition plan to slow the rollout of large-scale renewable energy and use more gas-fired electricity before nuclear plants are ready, analysts say.
Analysts said gas was a far more expensive power source in the national grid than renewable energy or coal, and opening new gas basins was unlikely to change this as the country’s cheap gas had already been extracted. They said adding more gas power could also increase greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating the climate crisis.
Tristan Edis, a director with the firm Green Energy Markets, said the wholesale electricity price was set by the most expensive fuel being used at any given time. Those prices were “very high” – between $250 and $300 per megawatt hour of electricity, about three times the average price – whenever fast-start gas plants were used to complement cheaper coal, solar, wind and hydro energy.
Gas now provides less than 5% of electricity in the national electricity market, and is only called on when needed to meet demand.
Edis said if a Coalition government put a hold on investment in solar and windfarms and boosted gas power so that it was replacing coal and always setting the price, “you’re talking about an increase of $500 to potentially even $1,000 per annum for a household power bill”.
Dr Roger Dargaville, an associate professor and the interim director of the Monash Energy Institute, said it was difficult to predict what the Coalition’s announcement would mean for bills due to a lack of detail, but agreed the increase in an annual bill could be $1,000.
“It seems the options being presented will either lead to extraordinary maintenance bills to keep old coal plants going or using a lot more gas,” he said. “Coal is a very cheap fuel, so if you’re going from a coal-dominated system to a gas-dominated system, you are going to see very steep energy prices.”
Dargaville said more renewable energy backed by “firming” support – including energy storage, new transmission lines and gas power only when required – was “the only sensible option and almost certainly the least cost option”. …
On Friday the progressive thinktank the Australia Institute released the results of a survey of 1,005 Australians that it commissioned from the firm Dynata in May. It found nearly two-thirds (65%) said they were not prepared to pay extra to have nuclear power in the mix. …
The former ACCC chief Rod Sims, who now chairs the renewables thinktank the Superpower Institute, has told ABC radio that nuclear power will increase household power bills:
“I think at best it would probably increase household energy costs by well over $200 per annum. That’s at best.
“And let me just unpick that if I could. So at the moment, if you want to use wind and solar, that’s about $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. If you want to firm that up, which we do because we want it completely reliable, that would cost about $110 a megawatt hour give or take a bit, and you’d be using solar wind up, using hydro pumped hydro gas batteries, so a whole mix of things. And it would be 100% reliable at a cost of give or take $110 a megawatt hour.
“If you use nuclear, and you look at the most recent new-build plants around Europe, the UK the US, you are talking at least between 2 [200] and $300 per megawatt hour.”
Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 25 June 2024, Australian Financial Review
We now know that if the federal opposition wins the next election, it proposes to gouge Australians to bankroll a national build-out of government-owned nuclear reactors across seven locations – because private capital won’t touch nuclear.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s fact-free, 900-word press release on the topic – the totality of the Coalition’s policy announcement – failed to produce costings for what would be a long-term, multibillion-dollar “nuke builder” tax. We estimate that the fiscal damage would be in the order of a minimum $100 billion, but likely considerably more given the international experience.
It beggars belief that the alternative government proposes nationalising an uncosted nuclear debt bomb and detonating it at the heart of domestic energy and climate policy.
Meanwhile, momentum has been accelerating into firmed renewables, as capital responds to the decarbonisation ambition of the Albanese government.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen this week announced that the first tranche of six gigawatts of new capacity under his centrepiece Capacity Investment Scheme was oversubscribed nearly seven-fold, with 40GW of tenders for firmed renewables in the pipeline.
Dutton, by contrast, centres nuclear in Australian energy policy against the unequivocal advice of the CSIRO, which warned that nuclear could not be operational until 2040 at the earliest, and the energy generated would be two to four times as expensive as fully firmed renewables. Our national scientific agency says nuclear “won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050”.
The LNP’s nuclear con is essentially an egregious exercise in bad faith, designed to disrupt and delay the firmed renewables rollout.
The CSIRO’s assessment is justified by a cursory examination of nuclear deployments in Western economies. The Vogtle nuclear plant expansion debacle in Georgia, in the US, completed seven years late in 2023, is the most expensive public works project in US history at $US35 billion ($52.6 billion), with consumers carrying the can for the runaway costs. England’s Hinkley Point C plant – started in 2016, with completion now delayed to 2031 – is an $88 billion millstone around citizens’ necks for the next 60 years.
In Canada, which opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien admiringly cites, the last nuclear plant was approved in 1977 and commissioned 15 years later in 1993, five years late. The original capital cost of $C3.9 billion blew out 400 per cent to $C14.4 billion, including a $C600 million refurbishment immediately on commissioning, and it now needs another $C12 billion ($13.2 billion) refurbishment. The Coalition’s government-owned nuclear scheme emulates its great public infrastructure debacles – Snowy 2.0 and the NBN. Snowy 2.0 was due in 2021 at a cost of $2 billion. After a rolling series of crises, it’s now expected to come online after 2028 and cost $15 billion.
Dutton’s assertion that nuclear could be operational here in 2035-37 is fanciful. Community opposition, inevitable legal challenges, absence of development pipeline in a country with zero history of nuclear energy, and legislative bans make this impossible. Critically, the Clean Energy Investor Group, which includes global investment giant BlackRock, Neoen and Macquarie, has condemned the Coalition’s “catastrophic” intervention, saying it puts at imminent risk the influx of private capital investment into Australian decarbonisation, as policy uncertainty destroys investor confidence and makes clean energy proposals uninvestable. This creates sovereign risk as it undermines our energy security.
The medium-term energy price implications are horrendous. Prices would skyrocket as private investment in new zero emissions replacement capacity is crowded out, resulting in undersupply for the next 15 to 25 years while we wait for the LNP’s nuclear white elephants to lumber into view, locking in higher power bills for consumers crushed by cost of living, and for domestic industry, reducing competitiveness.
In short, while nuclear may be part of the energy mix in some countries with a long-established history of deploying the technology – in Canada, for example, it was 14 per cent of total generation in 2023 (down from 16 per cent a decade ago), while renewables are 65 per cent and increasing – it is simply not viable here.
The LNP’s nuclear con is essentially an egregious exercise in bad faith, designed to disrupt and delay the firmed renewables rollout and entrench decades more of volatile, hyper-inflated fossil fuel energy for perceived political, donor and electoral advantage, even as the climate crisis escalates.
This is consistent with Dutton’s retreat from our 43 per cent by 2030 emissions reduction target, trashing our Paris Agreement commitments and exposing the Coalition’s unreconstructed climate denialism.
Firmed renewables can deliver secure, reliable and affordable supply at a fraction of the cost, as the CSIRO confirmed. We need to speed the rollout, as the Albanese government is doing, including making material progress on establishing huge offshore wind zones in Victoria and NSW, complementing the firmed renewables investment boost under the Capacity Investment Scheme.
By contrast, the Coalition’s nuclear road to ruin is a betrayal of the national interest – economic and fiscal vandalism on an epic scale and rank political opportunism.
The cost of building seven reactors under Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal could be up to $600 billion and “at best” deliver just 3.7 per cent of Australia’s energy mix in 2050, an industry body says.
The coalition has pledged to build the nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired power stations if it wins government at the next election.
The costs and details of the plans have remained scant, prompting concerns about safety in regional areas where the reactors are due to be built and the drawn-out 2035 completion date for construction of the first facility.
Using data from the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan, the Smart Energy Council estimated the cost to taxpayers to be at least $116 billion.
The cost is the same as delivering 82 per cent renewables by 2030, and an almost 100 per cent renewable energy mix by 2050, including the cost of building all of the enabling transmission infrastructure, the council said.
Under the operator’s forecast, the total expenditure required to fund all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure was found to have a 2024-dollar value of $121 billion, to be invested gradually out to 2050.
The bulk of the $121 billion would be invested by the private sector between now and 2050 to deliver about 300 gigawatts of capacity by 2050.
These figures compare to just 11 gigawatts of nuclear capacity funded by the taxpayer in the opposition’s proposal, the council said.
Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver “at best” 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.
“In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,” he said.
Mr Grimes said nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage.
“The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,” he said.
The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites.
“They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,” Mr Grimes said.
“It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.”
“GenCost found nuclear power to be more expensive than renewables and estimated a development timeline of at least 15 years, including construction. This reflects the absence of a local development pipeline, additional legal, safety and security requirements, and stakeholder evidence. Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”
George Wilkenfeld and Clive Hamilton, Jun 27, 2024
Examines implications of building 7.2 GW of nuclear capacity under the Coalition’s timeline, or a more realistic timeline, combined with a Dutton government halting new approvals for large scale PV and wind but allowing completion of projects already under construction. (Since this was written, the Coalition has said the 7 targeted sites could each house multiple reactors so the capacity could be significantly in excess of 7.2 GW.)
“To achieve zero emissions from electricity by 2050 while freezing large scale renewables at the 2027 level would require much more nuclear generation than proposed by the Coalition …. In fact, it would require over four times as much nuclear generation to come online by 2050. It is clear from this analysis that the Coalition’s announced plan for nuclear power and its continued commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 are nowhere near compatible. Either much more nuclear energy is needed or the commitment to net zero must be abandoned.”
Wilkenfeld and Hamilton go on to note that to bridge the gap with nuclear would require a highly improbable build rate:
“We now show that achieving net zero by 2050 through the roll-out of nuclear energy is virtually impossible. To reach zero electricity emissions by 2050 Australia would need to achieve, from scratch, a better build rate than Japan achieved some time after it had already commissioned its first reactor, with roughly a fifth of Japan’s population and industrial capacity. In fact, for its population size, Australia would need to exceed the highest nuclear build rates ever achieved.”
Finally, Wilkenfeld and Hamilton estimate increased greenhouse emissions based on various scenarios:
“Even if it were possible to replace fossil fuels with enough nuclear to reach zero emissions from electricity by 2050, emissions in the intervening years would be nearly 54 per cent higher than under the renewables pathway. …
“The Coalition’s nuclear strategy would increase Australia’s cumulative emissions over the period to 2050 by at least 1,462 Mt CO2-e compared with the renewables pathway. This is equivalent to nearly 3.4 times Australia’s total annual emissions (433 Mt CO2-e in 2022).”
Their conclusion:
“Our analysis shows that the Coalition’s nuclear strategy, if it met its stated aims, would see nuclear plants account for approximately 12 per cent of total electricity generation by 2050.
“The slowed pace of the renewables roll-out implied or stated by the Coalition would result in renewables supplying 49 per cent of total supply (compared with 98 per cent under Labor’s plan) and gas generation supplying approximately 39 per cent (compared with 2 per cent under Labor’s plan). It would have a severe negative impact on the renewables industries, but would be a major boost to the gas industry.
“With high continued supply of electricity from gas under the Coalition’s plan, attaining net zero emissions by 2050 would be out of the question. Attaining net zero by 2050 would require four times as many nuclear power plants to be built in the 2040s as the Coalition currently plans.
“Under Labor’s renewables plan, Australia’s electricity emissions are expected to decline year on year until they reach almost zero on 2050. Under the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power, a declining emphasis on renewables and an unavoidably greater role for fossil fuels means emissions from the electricity sector in 2050 would be nearly 19 times higher than under Labor’s plan.”
Solutions for Climate Australia, 11/6/24 (before Dutton’s 19/6/24 announcement)
Climate pollution would blow out by more than two billion tonnes
New analysis has found the impact on climate change of attempting to adopt nuclear reactors in Australia would be the equivalent of emitting double the 2022 annual emissions of the resource state of Oman, every year for the next 25 years.
That equates to an additional 2.3 billion tonnes of climate emissions between now and 2050 when compared to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan ‘Step Change Scenario’ that models the most likely energy transformation scenario under current policy settings.
The federal Coalition has not released the full details of their nuclear reactors plan. This analysis by Solutions for Climate Australia is based on public statements from Coalition leaders, Peter Dutton, Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud, including: a halt to utility-scale renewable energy projects; continuing to roll out rooftop solar; and using gas-fired electricity to cover the gap between coal closing and the proposal for nuclear reactors to come online.
Analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance says even if nuclear is successfully implemented it would be ‘at least four times’ more expensive than average cost of renewables
A nuclear-powered Australian economy would result in higher-cost electricity and would “sound the death knell” for decarbonisation efforts if it distracts from renewables investment, a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) argues.
BNEF said the federal opposition’s plan to build nuclear power stations on seven sites required “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans in at least three states, for starters.
Even if they succeeded, the levelised cost of electricity – a standard industry measure – would be far higher for nuclear power than renewables. Taking existing nuclear industries in western nations into account, their cost would still be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants firmed up with storage today, Bloomberg said.
“Nuclear could play a valuable, if expensive, role in Australia’s future power mix,” the report said. “However, if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for its decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.”
Bloomberg’s analysis complements CSIRO’s GenCost report that also found nuclear energy to be far more costly than zero-carbon alternatives. Australia’s lack of experience with the industry would result in a learning “premium” that would double the price of the first nuclear plant, according to the CSIRO.
Bloomberg also found that assuming the opposition’s seven plants had a generation capacity of 14 gigawatts, they would supply only a fraction of the total market.
If governments tried to rely on inflexible generators – whether coal-fired or nuclear – as renewables increased, they would have to resort to subsidies and other market interventions at a cost to taxpayers, Bloomberg said.
Sven Teske, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney
The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors, if elected, would represent a huge shift in energy policy for Australia. It also poses serious questions about whether this nation can meet its international climate obligations.
If Australia is to honour the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5˚C by mid-century, it can emit about 3 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon dioxide (CO₂) over the next 25 years. This remaining allowance is what’s known as our “carbon budget”.
My colleagues and I recently outlined the technological options for Australia to remain within its carbon budget. We did this using a tool we developed over many years, the “One Earth Climate Model”. It’s a detailed study of pathways for various countries to meet the 1.5˚C goal.
So what happens if we feed the Coalition’s nuclear strategy into the model? As I outline below, even if the reactors are built, the negative impact on Australia’s carbon emissions would be huge. Over the next decade, the renewables transition would stall and coal and gas emissions would rise – possibly leading to a 40% blowout in Australia’s carbon budget.
…
Using the One Earth climate model, I calculated two scenarios of how the policy would affect Australia’s carbon emissions until 2050. These calculations have not yet been peer-reviewed, but are based on an established modelling tool and publicly available information.
Under the first scenario, the Coalition’s seven nuclear reactors are built and operating by 2040 (bearing in mind this timeframe is highly unlikely to be achieved). The reactors would have a total capacity of about 6.5 gigawatts and produce about 50 terrawatt hours of electricity.
Let’s say Australia wants to stay within its carbon budget of 3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted in the three decades to 2050. Would this be achieved under the nuclear plan? The results produced by our model suggest the clear answer is no.
It shows with nuclear in the mix, Australia’s total emissions would rise from 3 billion tonnes to 4.2 billion tonnes – blowing our 2050 carbon budget by 40%.
This assumes two 0.5 gigawatt gas power plants are built by 2030 and another two of the same capacity by 2040. It also assumes the capacity of existing coal-fired power of 16 gigawatts in 2030, 10 gigawatts in 2035 and 5 gigawatts in 2040. The Australian Energy Market Operator expects Australia’s entire coal fleet will be retired by 2038. So this scenario would require extending the life of coal plants.
Under the second scenario, Australia realises nuclear energy is totally unfeasible, and from 2035 reverts to Plan A: an economy powered mostly by renewable energy. But during that lost decade, Australia’s rate of renewable electricity generation stagnates.
In this case, according to the modelling, the delay would cause Australia to blow its carbon budget by more than 100% by 2050 – emitting a total of 6.7 billion tonnes of CO₂.
Unbiased polls find that support for nuclear power in Australia falls short of a majority; that Australians support renewables to a far greater extent than nuclear power; that a majority do not want nuclear reactors built near where they live; and that most Australians are concerned about nuclear accidents and nuclear waste.
Here are the results from some polls in Australia over the past five years, with a decent sample size and questions that weren’t designed to push respondents in one direction or another:
* 2024 Resolve Political Monitor survey commissioned by the Nine newspapers: 36 percent support nuclear power, 23 percent opposed, 15 percent undecided, 27 percent “do not have a strong view, and would like to see the government investigate its use”.
* 2023 Freshwater Strategy Poll: 35 percent support nuclear power, 35 percent opposed, 18 percent neutral, 12 percent unsure. Thirty-seven percent agree that ‘Australia does not need to generate any energy from nuclear power’, 36 percent disagree, 27 percent neutral. Forty-four percent agree that Australia should remove the legal ban on nuclear power development, 29 percent disagree, 25 percent neutral.
* 2023 Essential poll: 50 percent support Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity, 33 percent opposed, 18 percent unsure.
* 2023 Savanta study commissioned by the pro-nuclear Radiant Energy Group: 40 percent strongly support or tend to support using nuclear energy to generate electricity in Australia, 36 percent strongly oppose or tend to oppose, 17 percent neutral, 7 percent don’t know. The study found that those who are most climate-concerned are least likely to support the use of nuclear power. (Perhaps they are better educated on the issues and the options.)
Nuclear supporters can take comfort that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition in most of those polls. But support doesn’t reach a majority in any of them.
Opposition to locally-built nuclear reactors
Opposition to locally-built nuclear power reactors has been clear and consistent for 20 years or more. Here are some recent poll results:
* 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: Around one-quarter of voters would tolerate a nuclear plant being built within 50 km of their home, while a majority (53 percent) would oppose it.
* 2022 Pure Profile poll: “Around 50 percent” of respondents in Australia, the US and Canada would feel “uncomfortable” if a new nuclear power station were built in their city. For the Australian respondents, 27 percent would feel “extremely uncomfortable”, 7 percent would feel “extremely at ease”.
* 2019 Essential poll: 28 percent “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, 60 percent would not.
* 2019 Roy Morgan poll: 19 percent would agree to a nuclear power plant being built in their area, 58 percent would be opposed and a further 23 percent would be “anxious” (so 81 percent would be opposed or anxious).
Nuclear waste and accidents are major concerns
The September 2023 Freshwater Strategy Poll found that a majority of respondents (55 percent) agreed with the proposition ‘I am concerned that nuclear plants are unsafe and people will be harmed’ while 27 percent disagreed and 17 percent were neutral.
The 2023 Savanta poll found that 77 percent of respondents were concerned about nuclear waste management compared to 18 percent not concerned; and 77 percent were concerned about “health & safety (i.e. nuclear meltdowns, impact on people living nearby)” compared to 21 percent not concerned.
A November 2012 Essential poll found that 63 percent of respondents agreed that nuclear power isn’t worth it because of the need to manage radioactive waste, and 62 percent agreed that nuclear power is too risky because of the potential for serious accidents.
Younger voters
The Murdoch-Coalition echo-chamber was especially excited about younger poll respondents in the February Newspoll survey (65 percent support, 32 percent opposition). But the poll was biased and as 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”.”
Renewables are far more popular than nuclear
Opinion polls clearly show that renewables are far more popular than nuclear power:
* December 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: 81 percent support for solar energy, onshore wind 57 percent, offshore wind 57 percent, gas 53 percent, hydrogen 48 percent, nuclear 35 percent, coal 33 percent.
* September 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll: Solar energy is the most popular energy source (84 percent support, 6 percent opposed), onshore and offshore wind are next (61 and 58 percent support, 12 percent opposed), while nuclear (35 percent support, 35 percent opposed) and coal (33 percent support, 35 percent opposed) are the least popular. Among Coalition voters, there is more support for renewables (35 percent) than nuclear (32 percent) as the ‘best option for energy generation in Australia’. For Labor voters, 62 percent think renewables are the best option, 17 percent nuclear. For Greens voters, 78 percent renewables, 6 percent nuclear.
* 2023 Savanta poll: 56 percent of Australian respondents think the energy transition should focus on renewables (41 percent large-scale solar farms, 15 percent onshore wind farms), 23 percent think it should focus on nuclear power.
* 2023 Australia Institute survey: 27 percent included nuclear power in their top three preferences, behind solar 68 percent, wind 51 percent, hydro 39 percent and power storage 28 percent.
Federal Governments spend against Barngarla Traditional Owners keep climbing in the lead up to a referendum for a Voice to Parliament.
Recent Senate estimates reveal a spend of $13,834,856 in legal costs by the Federal Government against the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) over the nuclear waste dump planned for Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.
BDAC Chairperson Jason Bilney has responded to these figures: “How can the Labor Government champion a Voice to Parliament while spending close to $14 million fighting us in court? It’s disrespectful and hypocritical. We have always said no to having a nuclear dump on our lands.”
“If the Federal Government are serious about First Nations people having a voice then they should listen to ours, the Barngarla people.”
On June 01, 2023 Sam Usher, CEO of the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) was asked by Senator Barbara Pocock what the overall legal spend for both the trials against the Barngarla had been. Mr Usher’s answer provided the figures of $13,083,132 on related external legal costs and $751,724 on internal department legal staff.
“We worked for over 20 years to have our Barngarla Native Title Rights recognised, and then before we knew it, we were hit with plans for a unwanted nuclear waste dump and have been given no voice to say no – in fact we were excluded from the right to vote in a community ballot on the issue in 2019 .”
In March 6, 2023 the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) took action in the Federal Court in Adelaide to overturn the federal Ministerial declaration to select Napandee near Kimba as the proposed site for a national nuclear waste facility. The court is expected to hand down a finding before the end of the year.
Please see issue briefing paper below.
——————-
BARNGARLA PEOPLE AND THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY 2023 BRIEFING
Background
The federal government plans to build a facility to store intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) and dispose of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and after a highly controversial process the Coalition Government declared Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula as the proposed site in November 2021. This facility is
The proposal for a facility at Kimba – known as the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
(“NRWMF”) – follows previous abandoned attempts including near Woomera in SA (2004), Muckaty Station in the NT (2014) and Wallerberdina Station in the Flinders Ranges (2019). Like Kimba, all failed to secure a social and community licence. Successive federal governments have been seeking a solution for Australia’s long-lived radioactive waste for decades. South Australia has long standing legislation that makes the building of a national nuclear waste facility illegal. In 2022 SA Premier Peter Malinauskas and the Labor party support a Barngarla veto right over the nuclear waste plan.
Barngarla Position
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) represent the Barngarla Native Title holders. The Barngarla have a determined Native Title area of 34,481 km2 covering parts of the Eyre Peninsula, including Kimba. Barngarla people have fought against the proposal in the courts and expressed their position through rallies, protests, public meetings, and the media.
A community ballot was conducted by the Kimba District Council in November 2019. Of 734 formal votes, 452 were Yes (61.6%) and 282 No (38.4%). After being excluded from the Kimba Council ballot, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (“BDAC”) engaged the Australian Election Company, an independent ballot agent, to conduct a confidential postal ballot of BDAC members regarding the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The ballot paper asked members: “Do you support the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?” Of 209 eligible voters (all of whom are Barngarla native title holders), 83 cast valid “No” votes. Zero “Yes” votes were returned. This unanimous “No” vote demonstrates that there is absolutely no support at all within the Barngarla community for the NRWMF.
The Barngarla people stand side by side with many in the Kimba and EP farming community opposing the waste dump and have support from many national and state civil society groups including Conservation SA and Unions SA.
No Dump Alliance, “Weatherill has turned his back on Traditional Owners over waste dump”, Media Release, 14 Nov. 2016.
No Dump Alliance spokesperson and Narungga man Tauto Sansbury has come out swinging against Jay Weatherill’s announcement that he is continuing his push to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump.
“The high level nuclear waste dump is overwhelmingly opposed by Traditional Owners and the wider community and the Premier’s announcement is a divisive move to get his own way. It is deeply disappointing that Aboriginal communities must continue to fight this issue when we have so many other issues to deal with.”
The Community Views Report released on Sunday states: “Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed concern about the potential negative impacts on their culture and the long-term, generational consequences of increasing the state’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle. There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”“Our people will continue to fight this nuclear waste dump proposal to the end,” said Mr Sansbury.
Ms. Karina Lester, Chairperson Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (YNTAC) and daughter of Atomic test survivor Yami Lester said “We will stand our ground and maintain what we have said all along: “No waste dump in our Ngura (Country)”. I will take this to our YNTAC AGM and discuss with our members what the Premier is now saying, to run a Statewide Referendum, and rally my community to use our rights to veto and say no to this unjust and insane idea of storing and disposing of nuclear waste from other countries. South Australians have been engaged in his process and have strongly spoken up about South Australia, that it is too good to waste. This is not only South Australia’s issue and decision to make this is Australia’s issue. No means no.”
No Dump Alliance spokesperson and MUA Branch Secretary Jamie Newlyn was surprised by the Premier’s lack of political judgment by announcing a referendum into SA becoming the world’s Nuclear Waste Dump.
“Premier Jay Weatherill has proven politically adept at picking up on whether a policy will fly with the community, but on the issue of nuclear waste he has totally missed the mark.
The Citizen’s jury, Aboriginal community and tens of thousands of South Australians have made it clear that South Australia and Australia should not be the world’s Nuclear Waste Dump.The economics don’t stack up, Safety of Workers and Community doesn’t stack up, Environmental concerns don’t stack up and ignoring Aboriginal concerns don’t stack up.
The MUA call on the Premier to abandon the case for Nuclear Waste and look for bold sustainable job creating ideas for our great state that we can all be proud of and support.
The No Dump Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups and academics who have opposed any move to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. Since the state has been pursuing waste dump plans the Alliance has been actively advocating against the waste dump and represented the views of its members.
Arabunna Elder Uncle Kevin Buzzacott passed away in Alice Springs on November 29, 2023. A fierce advocate for his people and for a nuclear-free Australia, Kevin will be sorely missed.
Kevin Buzzacott on Arabunna country in front of a water pumping station for the Olympic Dam mine.
Kevin was born in 1946 at Finniss Springs, on Arabunna country in South Australia. As a youngster, he learnt culture, language, how to live off the land, and he learnt to work with cattle and horses. Over the years, Kevin and his family lived in many places including Alice Springs, Tarcoola and Gawler. He worked on the railways for many years.
In 1984, Kevin moved to Port Augusta, where he worked as alcohol and drug worker. In 1985 he moved to Alice Springs where he worked on the successful campaign to stop the damming of the Todd River. He helped establish the Arrernte Council in Alice Springs and served as an ATSIC regional Councillor.
In the mid-1990s Kevin returned to South Australia to protect Arabunna country. One of his major campaigns was to try to stop the rapacious water take from the Great Artesian Basin by mining company WMC (and later BHP) to supply the Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine at Roxby Downs. The daily extraction of around 40 million litres of water has adversely affected the precious Mound Springs on Arabunna country ‒ desert oases supported by the underlying Great Artesian Basin. Kevin’s campaign might eventually succeed: there are plans to build a desalination plant on Spencer Gulf which could lead to a reduction and possible cessation of the water take from the Great Artesian Basin.
“I’ve been at this game of calling for justice and peace for 30, maybe 40 years, but what really got me going was when Western Mining Corporation (WMC) set up the Olympic Dam mine. They started doing deals with the government on pastoral leases. So they did deals with S. Kidman & Co. and took up one of their cattle stations, Stuart’s Creek Station, which is on Arabunna land. Because of our native title and ongoing land rights campaigning, we’ve been fighting for these places for a long time. Stuart’s Creek is a very special, sacred place for us, and we’ve been trying to get it back for a long time.
“I thought that just before they bought that place I’d go and protest and camp on it. Also, it is on that station, on the shores of the Lake Eyre, where WMC started taking the sacred water out of the Lake Eyre Basin. That was where they started sucking the life blood out of us. That is where they put their big bore down, right on the shores of the lake. That was a real kick in the guts for me and really got me going.”
“I weighed it all up and I said to the mob, ‘I need some help out here. We’ll set up camp and contest WMC.’ There were a lot of levels involved with fighting the mine, but making the camp was like reclaiming the land or making a statement.
“We had a lot of tourists that came to visit, and were interested in finding out what was going on. Thousands of people came through the camp. We had flyers at an information tent, and free tea and coffee; we set up a lot of things. People who came across us on a trip to the desert and Lake Eyre learnt about the issues and were concerned about what was going on. When they talked with us they were upset about what was going on. Nobody knew about it, and that was one of the reasons in my mind why that was happening out in the desert.”
The protest camp was established in March 1999. WMC was among the most viciously racist mining companies in Australia and true to form, the company tried to have Arabunna Elder Kevin Buzzacott evicted from Arabunna country. The protest camp lasted until it was busted up by WMC goons and local police in December 1999.
Kevin initiated court actions against WMC and the federal government. These actions weren’t successful in the courts but helped draw attention to the issues Kevin was fighting for:
“I did a court action against Hugh Morgan, who was the head of WMC. I charged Hugh Morgan with genocide, trying to flush him out and some of the shareholders. Hugh Morgan is based in Victoria. People in Melbourne deserve to live in a good place, they don’t need to live with these criminals and warmongers. Another court action I did was one I brought against Alexander Downer and Senator Robert Hill for stopping Lake Eyre from becoming a World Heritage site.”
After the protest camp on Arabunna country was busted up, Kevin set up a protest camp at Genocide Corner ‒ outside the SA Governor’s residence in the centre of Adelaide:
“I had to go to Adelaide for the court case against Hugh Morgan, and when I was there the charges against Hugh Morgan were dismissed. The judge was a pastor in the Lutheran Church, and I asked him to stand down because I believed he had a conflict of interest as his church was a shareholder in the WMC. When he refused to do so I told him to get stuffed, walked out and went straight down to Government House to start a protest. I took banners, and whatever things I had.
“While I was talking to the media I was confronted by the cops. I looked over the road and saw a patch of grass and thought, “Bugger it, I’ll make camp and a fire here.” I ended up calling it genocide Corner, and renamed Adelaide the City of Genocide. It was on the intersection of King William Street and North Terrace [one of the main intersections in the city] so loads of people were passing by. Four ceremonial fires for peace were lit, and after 21 days the Adelaide City Council and 50 police came down and arrested me for failing to cease to loiter. It was one of those laws they hadn’t used in a long time, but they used it to clear away all my stuff and my supporters. One of the court conditions was that I was not able to walk within the vicinity of Genocide Corner. I was of a mind just to walk straight back there, but I had the Peace Walk from Lake Eyre to Sydney coming up so I had to let that one go.”
Peace Walk
The Peace Walk was timed to reach Sydney for the Olympics in September 2000:
“We walked for months, for 3,000 kilometres, and all sorts of people from all walks of life joined us. We were carrying the fire for peace and justice. I made sure that we went through lots of different Aboriginal communities. I got a lot of support, but the government also pressured a lot of people not to support me by threatening their jobs and funding. Each place we went to, people took us through their land and we respected each mob.
“There were all types of pressure put on people along the way. The cops were nasty and threatened some of the walkers with guns and everything. I visited all the jails along the way from Broken Hill to Dubbo and Bathurst. It was sad to see so many young brothers confined and locked up.
“We went to Canberra and met up with the Tent Embassy mob. A couple of politicians came to meet us and then we all went to Government House to present the Governor-General with a document of peace and justice.
“When we arrived in Sydney for the Olympic Games the Tent Embassy mob had already set up a camp [in Victoria Park], so we joined up with them. We did all sorts of things. We did a re-enactment at the beach where Captain Cook came in. We re-enacted the bad way in which he came with guns and all that and then the next day we did how they should have come.”
In 2002, Kevin reclaimed the Emu and Kangaroo totems from the Australian Coat of Arms hanging outside Parliament House, Canberra:
“I had watched the Federal Police arresting our people at the Tent Embassy and other places. They all wore these caps with the Emu and Kangaroo emblem on them. I knew how sacred these animals were to us and I had talked with old people about how the government was misusing them while they locked us up and treated us like dirt. On the 30th anniversary of the embassy I told everyone that I had a plan and that they should join me with their cameras. We went up to Parliament and I climbed up one of the pillars and grabbed the Coat Of Arms and walked off with it. It was in broad daylight and I said: “I’m not stealing this, I’m reclaiming it and taking back the use of our sacred animals.”
“Years later [in 2005] when I was visiting Canberra the cops came down to the Tent Embassy with a summons for theft and defacing government property and so on. During the court case I questioned their authority and jurisdiction over me and over this land. I talked to the jury about the imposition of foreign laws upon our people and the theft of our lands and got a 12-month suspended sentence with good behaviour.”
Peace Pilgrimage to Japan
In 2004, Kevin participated in the Peace Pilgrimage from the Olympic Dam uranium mine to Hiroshima, Japan:
“During the first walk and then in Sydney we met people from all over and that got everything going. Aboriginal nations from Queensland were saying there should be a walk up the coast to show the world the things they were suffering. Then some people made contact with people in Hiroshima to have a walk from the uranium mine in Roxby to where the bomb was dropped in order to show how all these things are linked. Aboriginal people, Japanese monks, all sorts of people were involved. It started at Roxby and then went to Canberra and then an aeroplane took us to Japan where we walked all over the country. We visited Nagasaki and Hiroshima and met a lot of people who were kids when the bombs were falling. We did talks and took part in a huge ceremony on the anniversary of the bomb being dropped. There were people everywhere and lanterns lit and people crying, it was full on.”
“After the court case I came down to Melbourne where Robbie Thorpe and others were setting up a camp in Kings Domain during the Commonwealth, or Stolenwealth, Games. We had hundreds of people camping and visiting. We also had all sorts of hassles from the cops and council and everyone else, but we stayed put and proved our point.
“When the games came we had rallies and big marches and ceremonies and I talked about the need for justice and the need for white Australia to respect our cultural values and to stop the destruction of our sacred sites and our country.”
“BHP have taken over WMC. They now own Olympic Dam and want to make it bigger. Myself and others who want to stop the mine got to be proxies for shareholders, they gave us tickets and we got to go inside on their behalf. I got to speak and I told the people there about the damage they are doing and that they need to stop it immediately.
“Aboriginal people have lived here for more than 40,000 years and cared for this country, but now its being turned into a sick and evil place. Myself, and others around this country, were born to be peacemakers.
“We mustn’t be frightened to educate others and fight, but not in a warlike way, to protect the earth and let everything run free. I don’t want to shoot or bomb the people from BHP and the others who are destroying this country because two wrongs don’t make a right. I think if I can help them to wake up to what they are doing then that will be punishment enough.”
Kevin was at the first meeting of the Alliance Against Uranium (later renamed the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance) in 1997, and for many years he served as the Alliance’s President. He actively supported countless campaigns against uranium mining and plans to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land. He was at the Beverley uranium mine supporting Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in May 2000 when SA police viciously and illegally attacked protesters, children and journalists. Kevin was at the Lizard’s Revenge protest at Olympic Dam in 2012.
Awards
In 2001, Kevin was awarded Nuclear-Free Future Resistance Award by the Nuclear-Free Future Foundation and travelled to Ireland to accept the award.
In 2006, Kevin was awarded the SA Conservation Council’s Jill Hudson Award.
In 2007, Kevin was awarded the Australian Conservation Foundation’s 2007 Peter Rawlinson Award for two decades of work highlighting the impacts of uranium mining and promoting a nuclear free Australia. ACF Executive Director Don Henry said:
“Kevin is a cultural practitioner, an activist, an advocate and an educator. He has travelled tirelessly, talking to groups large and small about the impacts of uranium mining and the threats posed by the nuclear industry. Kevin has had a profound impact on the lives of many people – especially young people – with his many tours and ‘on-country’ events. For many young activists ‘Uncle Kev’ is truly an unsung hero and, against the current pro-nuclear tide, his is a very important struggle and story.”
Kevin participated in many of the Radioactive Exposure Tours run by Friends of the Earth. We camped at the ‘Old Lake’ (Lake Eyre) and generations of young activists learnt first-hand about the impacts of the Olympic Dam mine on country and culture.
Kevin’s partner Margret Gilchrist passed on Kevin’s final message when he returned to Alice Springs with his health failing: “Keep that old fire burning, don’t stop til we’ve won, Lake Eyre for World Heritage.”
Kevin’s funeral service can be viewed online and many videos featuring Kevin can be found at Cinemata and YouTube.
[Written by Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.]
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ALLIGATOR ENERGY’S APPLICATION FOR A RETENTION LEASE OVER THE BLACKBUSH DEPOSIT (SAMPHIRE URANIUM PROJECT)
To: Mining Regulation Branch
SA Department for Energy and Mining
September 2023
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The SA Department for Energy and Mining should reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.
Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.
The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.
The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at the Beverley and Honeymoon mines. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.
There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans for eluate disposal before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed.
The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.
The Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.
INTRODUCTION
Friends of the Earth Australia opposes uranium mining for various reasons including the weapons proliferation risks associated with the industry, and the intractable problem of high-level nuclear waste management. Those issues are beyond the scope of the SA Department for Energy and Mining’s consideration of the Samphire project application. Nevertheless we call on the Department to reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.
It is more than likely that the Samphire mine will not proceed to commercial production due to:
The modest size of the uranium deposit (18.1Mlbs U3O8 at a 250ppm cut-off grade (combined Inferred and Indicated) from 11.4Mt @ 720ppm U3O8).[1]
Stubbornly low uranium prices over the past decade, notwithstanding a price increase in 2023 which may or may not be sustained.[2]
Near-zero prospects for significant worldwide uranium demand increase.[3]
The largest worldwide producers ‒ Cameco and Kazatomprom ‒ have put large uranium mine projects into care-and-maintenance in recent years and the re-entry of those large projects will put downward pressure on prices and severely limit the prospects for small start-ups such as Alligator Energy.
Alligator Energy notes that the company plans “to undertake a Feasibility Study in 2024, with all activity requiring further State and Federal Government approvals, and the securing of project financing amongst other key matters, before a mine could be developed.”
The Samphire project was abandoned a decade ago and will likely be abandoned again. This highlights the need for full rehabilitation of the site if approval is granted for a Field Recovery Trial.
Recommendation: Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.
SOLID WASTE
A 2003 SA government audit of radioactive wastes stated that the Radium Hill waste repository contains some contaminated equipment from test work conducted at the Honeymoon site in the early 1980s.[4] The same audit noted that the Radium Hill waste repository “is not engineered to a standard consistent with current internationally accepted practice.”
Dumping contaminated solid waste at the sub-standard repository at Radium Hill is not an option for Alligator Energy. What plans does Alligator Energy have for the disposal of solid wastes contaminated with radionuclides and other toxins?
Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that low-level radioactive waste generated during the Field Recovery Trial will include:
“Soil wastes generated within operational areas that have been in contact with process fluids or material from the mineralised zone, are waste streams derived from processing, and/or are waste materials that do not meet specified radiological clearance limits.”
The Retention Lease Proposal also provides the following information on solid low-level radioactive wastes:
The Retention Lease Proposal goes on to state:
“Low level radioactive wastes will be securely stored on site during the leach trials in compliance with the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 and associated regulations the specific requirements that will be detailed in the site Radiation Management Plan and Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RMP/RWMP).”
The Retention Lease Proposal envisages disposal in a “licensed disposal facility”. To the best of our knowledge, SA does not have a “licensed disposal facility” for low-level radioactive waste, in which case Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Recommendation: The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.
RADIOACTIVE LIQUID SPILLS
A feature of ISL mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive solutions. The SA Department of Primary Industry and Resources listed 59 spills at Beverley from 1998-2007 and presumably there have been many more since 2007.
Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that spills of low-level radioactive liquid waste are anticipated to amount to no more than one cubic metre. It further states: “All low-level radioactive waste streams will be transferred to the liquid waste storage vessel, then directed to the liquid disposal zone where disposal will occur.”
Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at Beverley and Honeymoon. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.
LIQUID WASTE AND ATTENUATION
Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that eluate (containing ~6000lbs of dissolved uranium) from the ion exchange stripping process will be the end product and will be stored in tanks onsite. Alligator proposes retaining the stored eluate for approximately one year post the end of the Field Recovery Trial to allow sufficient time for a formal decision on whether or not to proceed to a full-scale mining operation with the two options cited being: eluate retained onsite for future Alligator Energy production or donated for precipitation at one of SA’s producing ISR mines.
Recommendation: There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed. Alligator talks about plural in-situ recovery (ISR) mines although it surely knows that only Beverley is operating.
“If field natural attenuation monitoring cannot be verified within 5 years, a reassessment of the model against field parameters will be undertaken and model rerun (if required). Natural attenuation monitoring for model verification will be undertaken until model validation is accepted by relevant regulatory agencies. In the event, model validation cannot be achieved, Alligator will undertake active groundwater restoration methods such as groundwater flush or sweep.”
Further detail is required on groundwater restoration options. The Retention Lease Proposal is unacceptably vague.
Alligator Energy will have precious little interest in groundwater restoration if a decision is made not to proceed to commercial mining. The company may not have the resources for groundwater restoration. The company may not even exist in five years’ time. All this points to the need for a financial bond to be lodged with the SA government to ensure that adequate resources are available for full site rehabilitation including groundwater restoration.
BEVERLEY/HEATHGATE WHISTLEBLOWER
A former Heathgate worker contacted Friends of the Earth in 2022 and provided the following information:
* Heathgate breaks every rule in the book and Beverley may be the worst-run mine in SA.
* Regulation is deficient in many respects within and between the SA EPA, Safe Work SA and SA Water.
* Heathgate should have been hit with one or more $30,000 fines by Safe Work SA but Safe Work SA has been negligent.
* Gross mismanagement by Heathgate has led to high staff turn-over ‒ in particular with respect to staff responsible for worker safety.
* Lids have come off uranium drums at the Beverley plant and also on one or more ships transporting uranium to the USA. The handling of uranium spillages at Beverley has grossly violated safety protocols.
* Problems arising from a revolving door between regulators and Heathgate.
* Heathgate isn’t prepared to spend the money required to fix problems at Beverley, and there is little or no pressure from regulators.
* Problems with radioactive monitoring badges, e.g. not replaced if lost.
* Culture of acceptance of safety lapses, anyone speaking up may be fired. NDAs are part of the problem.
Clearly the concerns raised by the former Heathgate employee raise concerns regarding other mines including the Samphire proposal, in particular whether regulatory deficiencies will have adverse consequences.
Have there been ICAC and/or Office of Public Integrity investigations into aspects of Heathgate’s operations at Beverley? If so, what lessons if any were learned and how is that knowledge impacting assessment of other projects including Alligator Energy’s Samphire project?
Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.
HISTORY OF IN-SITU LEACH URANIUM MINING
In-situ leach (ISL) uranium mining involves pumping an acid solution (or an alkaline solution in some cases) into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive waste – containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid – is simply dumped in groundwater.
“As stated in the Beverley Assessment Report, the bleed solutions, waste solutions from uranium recovery, plant washdown waters and bleed streams from the reverse osmosis plants are collected prior to disposal into the Namba aquifer via disposal wells. These liquid wastes are combined and concentrated in holding/evaporation ponds, with excess injected into selected locations within the mined aquifer. The injected liquid is acidic (pH 1.8 to 2.8) and contains heavy metals and radionuclides originating from the orebody.
From being inert and immobile in the ore body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now mobile in the aquifer.
The 2004 CSIRO report endorsed the dumping of liquid waste in ground-water yet the information and arguments it used in support of that conclusion were tenuous. The CSIRO report notes that attenuation is “not yet proven” and the timeframe of “several years to decades” could hardly be more vague. The 2004 CSIRO report states in its Executive Summary:
“The use of acid rather than alkaline leaching and disposal of liquid wastes by re-injection into the aquifer is contentious. Available data indicate that both the leach solution and liquid waste have greater concentrations of soluble ions than does the pre-mining groundwater. However as this groundwater has no apparent beneficial use other than by the mining industry, this method of disposal is preferable to surface disposal. Although not yet proven, it is widely believed and accepted that natural attenuation will result in the contaminated water chemistry returning to pre-mining conditions within a timeframe of over several years to decades.”
Elsewhere the 2004 CSIRO report notes uncertainties associated with attenuation:
“The EIA for Beverley and Honeymoon suggest that natural attenuation will occur, however, exact timeframes are not given. The issue of predicting attenuation is made more complex by not fully understanding the microbiological or the mineralogy of the surrounding ore bodies, before and after mining, and how these natural conditions will react with the altered water quality introduced by the injection of leachate, and re-injection of wastewaters. Following general practice, geochemical modelling was undertaken with a series of assumptions where data were not available. Although these assumptions are considered reasonable by the review team, some technical experts have a differing opinion. In any case the results must be considered approximate.
The monitoring results from Beverley are limited by the short duration of mining and operation, and there are currently no completely mined-out areas for which the water chemistry can be followed after mining to verify the extent of the expected natural attenuation. However, pH results for an area that was trial-mined in 1998 and then left until full-scale mining of the same area was due are shown in Figure 13.
Note that whilst other data are available for these wells there are not consistent trends in other analytes. There has been little recovery of groundwater chemistry towards background in the test-production wells other than a favourable change for pH. There are presently no equivalent monitoring data for the northern area, which is presently being mined.”
Even if full attenuation does occur over time, it is unlikely to occur in the timeframe of post-mine-closure monitoring proposed by the mining proponent. The 7/1/09 Beverley Four Mile Project Public Environment – Report and Mining Lease Proposal document states:
“Heathgate proposes an initial period of five years from the conclusion of commercial operations to complete the decommissioning of facilities. A monitoring and maintenance program is proposed to run for a further two years, for a total of seven years from the final conclusion of mining activities. The total monitoring period will be reviewed with the regulatory authorities and may be extended.
“Facilities will therefore be fully decommissioned within seven years from the conclusion of the commercial operation. This period includes a post-completion monitoring period for vegetation maintenance, groundwater sampling, drainage repairs and other activities to ensure the long-term permanent rehabilitation of the site.
The 2004 CSIRO report states:
“Natural attenuation is preferred to adjusting the chemistry of the wastewater prior to re-injection as the latter would result in the need for additional chemicals on-site, generation of contaminated neutralisation sludges which would have to be disposed of, risk of potential clogging of pore spaces in the aquifer and associated higher costs.
Those are not insurmountable problems. Moreover there are alternatives to adjusting the chemistry of waste-water then reinjecting it into the aquifer, such as evaporation followed by management of solid wastes. As the CSIRO report notes:
“10.6 Alternatives to Liquid Waste Re-Injection
“Suggestions made during the community consultation process included not re-injecting the liquid wastes into the aquifer, and neutralisation of waste before re-injection.
“Not re-injecting the waste into the aquifer would require either sophisticated water treatment and/or the installation of much larger evaporation ponds. Both would generate solid wastes to be disposed of in a solid waste repository. When the wastes dried out they would become a possible dust source, which could increase the potential radiation exposure of workers, in particular in relation to dust inhalation, but also from radon inhalation and gamma exposure. Environmental radiation levels at the surface would also increase. These are presently negligible issues associated with the existing ISL practices.
“Neutralisation of the waste liquid prior to re-injection would precipitate out some metal salts, which would need to be filtered before re-injection, and be disposed of in a solid waste repository.
“Also following re-injection it is likely that the re-injection bores would rapidly clog owing to precipitation around the bores, as the injected water and existing acidic water in the aquifer interact. Clogging of re-injection wellfields and associated problems with pipelines and pumps may increase the risk of spills due to operational problems with equipment and increased maintenance.”
None of the issues raised by the CSIRO amount to compelling reasons to support dumping liquid waste in groundwater. Some of the reasons cited are absurd and cast serious doubt over the credibility of the CSIRO review ‒ for example dust suppression is simple and inexpensive.
Recommendation: The SA Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.
The 2003 Senate References and Legislation Committee report into the regulation of uranium mining in Australia reported “a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance”, it identified “many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment”, and it concluded that changes were necessary “in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage”. On ISL mining, the 2003 Senate report stated:
“The Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available on its safety and environmental impacts.”
“The Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts.”
“Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimised.”
In relation to the Beverley mine, Assoc. Prof. Gavin Mudd notes: “The critical data which could answer scientific questions concerning contaminant mobility in groundwater has never been released by General Atomics. This is especially important since GA no longer maintain the mine is ‘isolated’ from surrounding groundwater, with desires to expand the mine raising legitimate concerns over the groundwater contamination legacy left at Beverley.”
Assoc. Prof. Mudd states:
The mining technique of in situ leaching (ISL), often referred to as solution mining, is becoming an increasingly favoured method for the extraction of uranium across the world. This is primarily due to its low capital and operating costs compared to conventional mining. Little is known about the environmental impact of this method, and mining companies have been able to exploit this to promote the method as “environmentally benign”.
The ISL process involves drilling ground water bores or wells into a uranium deposit, injecting corrosive chemicals to dissolve the uranium within the ore zone, then pumping back the uranium-laden solution.
The method can be applied only to uranium deposits located within a ground water system or confined aquifer, commonly in palaeochannel deposits (old buried river beds).
Although ISL is presented in simplified diagrams by the nuclear industry, the reality is that geological systems are inherently complex and not predictable.
There are a range of options for the chemistry of the mining solutions. Either acidic or alkaline chemical agents can be used in conjunction with an oxidising agent to dissolve the uranium.
Typical oxidising agents include oxygen or hydrogen peroxide, while alkaline agents include ammonia or sodium-bicarbonate or carbon dioxide. The most common acidic chemical used is sulphuric acid, although nitric acid has been tried at select sites and in laboratory tests.
The chemicals can have potentially serious environmental impacts and cause long-term changes to ground water quality.
The use of acidic solutions mobilises high levels of heavy metals, such as cadmium, strontium, lead and chromium. Alkaline solutions tend to mobilise only a few heavy metals such as selenium and molybdenum. The ability to restore the ground water to its pre-mining quality is, arguably, easier at sites that have used alkaline solution chemistry.
A review of the available literature on ISL mines across the world can easily counter the myths promulgated about ISL uranium mining. Whether one examines the USA, Germany, Russia and associated states, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Australia or new ISL projects across Asia, the truth remains the same – the ISL technique merely treats ground water as a sacrifice zone and the problem remains “out of sight, out of mind”.
ISL uranium mining is not controllable, is inherently unsafe and is unlikely to meet “strict environmental controls”. It is not an environmentally benign method of uranium mining.
The use of sulphuric acid solutions at ISL mines across Eastern Europe, as well as a callous disregard for sensible environmental management, has led to many seriously contaminated sites.
Perhaps the most severe example is Straz pod Ralskem in the Czech Republic, where up to 200 billion litres of ground water is contaminated. Restoration of the site is expected to take several decades or even centuries.
Solution escapes and difficult restorations have been documented at ISL sites in Texas and Wyoming.
Australia has encountered the same difficulties, especially at the controversial Honeymoon deposit in South Australia during pilot studies in the early 1980s and at Manyingee in Western Australia until 1985.
The Honeymoon pilot project used sulphuric acid in conjunction with ferric sulphate as the oxidising agent. The wells and aquifer experienced significant blockages due to the minerals jarosite and gypsum precipitating, lowering the efficiency of the leaching process and leading to increased excursions. The aquifers in the vicinity of Honeymoon are known to be connected to aquifers used by local pastoralists to water stock.
Journal articles, conferences papers etc. on ISL mining (and other issues) by Assoc. Prof. Mudd are available online.[6]
A 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report noted:[7]
Field trials” of acid in-situ leach (acid ISL) uranium mining have already occurred at the Beverley uranium mine and the proposed Honeymoon site in north-eastern South Australia. Given the history of leaks and spills that occurred at Honeymoon and Beverley during their “trial” phases, there is significant cause for concern around further such “trials”. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon trial mine in 1999, including one “excursion” of 9,600 litres of “process fluid”, which had a significant uranium and toxic radon gas content, and another in which sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine process unexpectedly traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer. None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the project had been granted state and federal approvals.
During the trial at Beverley through 1998, 500 litres of extraction fluid were spilt, the accident not revealed until 5 months after it occurred. Beverley also experienced a major underground leak of radioactive mining solution to groundwater in 1999, also not confirmed until after state government approvals in 2001.
While one purpose of conducting a “trial” may be to determine the extent and nature of a groundwater system, the injection of acid and radioactive mine waste into aquifers is not an acceptable way of doing this. The South Australian community has a democratic right to participate in decision-making regarding activities with significant environmental impact such as mining. The history of leaks, spills and accidents that characterise ISL mining emphasise the urgent need for full environmental assessment to be conducted before the commencement of any mining, “trial” or otherwise.
The 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report also pointed to severe problems with ISL mining overseas:[8]
Both acid and alkaline ISL mines across the world have left a track record of contamination of surrounding groundwater systems, some of which are the main water supply for communities, with attempts to rehabilitate the groundwater often unsuccessful. Some of the European cases include:
Königstein (Germany): as of 2005, there was still 1,900 million m3 of radioactive and heavy metals contaminated water within the mining zone. This pollution lies within an aquifer that supplies Dresden with drinking water;
Devladovo (Ukraine): the surface of the site was heavily contaminated from spills, and groundwater contamination is spreading downstream from the site at a speed of 53m per year. By 1995 it had already traveled a distance of 1.7km, and will reach the village of Devladovo in the next 12 years;
Bolyarovo, Tenevo/Okop, Haskovo(Bulgaria): very high concentrations of sulfate ions are found in surface water and in the wells of private owners as a result of accidental spilling of solution. All uranium mining and milling in Bulgaria was closed down by government decree in 1992, after over 20km2 of the country was contaminated by uranium industry activity.
The contamination at these and many other sites, including the high concentrations of major ions, heavy metals and radionuclides, has not attenuated significantly over time (as uranium mining companies claim), and instead often migrates through groundwater to pollute other areas.
US geochemist and environmental scientist Richard Abitz comments on his own experience attempting to rehabilitate groundwater at ISL uranium mines in Ohio, Texas and Wyoming. When the mining chemicals are injected into groundwater, he observes, uranium contamination “goes through the roof”. “Once it is in there, the damage has been done”, he says. “It takes hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to transform aquifer water back into a drinkable condition”, and “regardless of the millions of dollars and years of efforts, the water has never been restored.”
Australia’s own problematic experience with ISL uranium mining (limited to the Beverley mine, and the Honeymoon and Manyingee, WA, “trials”), combined with the experience of ISL overseas emphasise the serious risks and impacts of this mining method. That such mining should be permitted in South Australia on a “trial” basis, without environmental impact or public consultation is a grave concern that demands legislative amendment.
[4] Radiation Protection Division, SA Environment Protection Authority, September 2003, ‘Audit of Radioactive Material in South Australia’
[5] Taylor, G.; Farrington, V.; Woods, P.; Ring, R.; Molloy, R. (2004): Review of Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining Process.- CSIRO Land and Water Client Report.
[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20100228164521/http://civil.eng.monash.edu.au/about/staff/muddpersonal More recent ISL papers can be obtained directly from Assoc. Prof. Mudd: https://www.rmit.edu.au/contact/staff-contacts/academic-staff/m/mudd-dr-gavin
[7] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf
[8] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf