News location:

Thursday, December 19, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Dutton goes nuclear in bid to blow open election race

“Proposals to introduce nuclear power to Australia make no sense,” the ACF report concludes. (EPA PHOTO)

By Kat Wong and Jacob Shteyman in Canberra

The coalition has lifted the lid on its nuclear plans, presenting a list of potential sites for power stations in a move that could make or break its electoral campaign.

With tens of thousands of Australians learning they could be living next to a nuclear reactor, a chorus of opposition grew on social media and talkback radio while Labor came out swinging on the “economic insanity” of the move.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s much-anticipated energy policy will place nuclear power plants in Australia’s former fossil-fuel heartlands if the coalition wins the federal election.

He said a coalition government would build seven plants at existing coal-fired power stations, with the assets to be owned by the Commonwealth.

No costings were provided for the policy even as Mr Dutton said consumers and business were suffering from high energy costs.

The sites include Loy Yang Power Station in Victoria’s Gippsland area, Callide and Tarong in Queensland, Mount Piper at Lithgow in central west NSW and Liddell in NSW’s Hunter region.

The coalition would also build small modular reactors at Northern Power Station in the South Australian city of Port Augusta and at Muja Power Station, southeast of Perth.

“We want to utilise the existing assets that we’ve got, the poles and wires that are used at the moment on the coal-fired power station sites … to distribute the energy generated from the latest-generation nuclear reactors,” Mr Dutton told reporters in Sydney on Wednesday.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said its core policy position was that any energy source should compete in the market while aiming for agreed emissions targets.

“As we go down the path to net zero it is important that we focus on real-world consequences and keep costs minimised for business and the broader community,” ACCI chief of policy and advocacy David Alexander said.

The power plants will form part of an “energy mix” that also includes gas and renewables, which the opposition claims will help provide around-the-clock baseload power and drive down prices.

The first two plants are expected to be completed between 2035 and 2037, as it will take at least a decade from a government decision for nuclear electricity to enter the grid.

This meant Australia could still reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Mr Dutton said.

But environmental advocates say the plan will delay an urgently needed shift away from fossil fuels, with Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie calling it a commitment to coal and gas.

“(It’s) a clear case of radioactive greenwashing and a scheme for more climate pollution,” she said.

Even if the small modular reactors end up cheaper and quicker to build than their larger counterparts, no projects have been completed globally and the CSIRO warned it would be “very unlikely” one would be up and running as quickly as 2038.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen decried the proposal as a “nuclear scam”.

“It’s risky because it undermines investment in renewable energy, it’s risky because it means relying on ageing coal-fired power … which is increasingly unreliable,” he told reporters.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the plan made “no economic sense” and would put Australia in a position of energy insecurity, while Treasurer Jim Chalmers labelled it “economic insanity”.

A report released by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator in May revealed a large-scale nuclear power plant would cost at least $8.5 billion.

Minerals Council executive Tania Constable backed the plan, claiming nuclear power would help decarbonise the economy while maintaining its competitiveness.

To assuage safety concerns, Mr Dutton said a 470-megawatt reactor would produce waste equivalent to the size of a soda can, which could be stored on site and moved to a permanent home.

Even if the federal election turns in the coalition’s favour, the opposition will still have to battle it out against the states.

NSW Premier Chris Minns said he would not lift the nuclear prohibition in NSW, Victoria’s government is strongly opposed and Queensland Liberal National leader David Crisafulli – who is tipped win the state’s election – has ruled out nuclear energy.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

3 Responses to Dutton goes nuclear in bid to blow open election race

David says: 19 June 2024 at 11:39 am

The trouble is, as always, politics has got in the way of sensible debate. Like it or not, current renewable strategies are heavily dependent on batteries which are for the foreseeable future heavily dependent on mining and not as renewable/recyclable as we would like. Kicking it down the road relying on some new scientific breakthrough is a big risk. Quite likely if we do come up with some new technology it will be just as unrecyclable and need a whole lot more mining,

If you want to be realistic about renewables then you also need to get as close as possible to zero mining. Current renewables conveniently overlook the fact that they are heavily dependent on mining and have a high resource usage for the materials required and the very poor kw/(area and infrastructure). Just because the mining it occurs in some other country doesn’t make it a good idea and definitely not as green as people like to think.

Like it or not but nuclear has the advantage of a very small environmental impact in terms of size of site required. Mining requirements are well understood and we have lots of holes to consider as options for storing the nasty stuff. It is a solution that provides a feasible option to significantly limiting our growing footprint on the planet. I’m not very happy about the idea of nuclear but I’m equally unhappy that there aren’t any other realistic long term options being discussed and it is being hampered by politics and hysteria. As it currently looks, we’re going to spend years believing we don’t need nuclear, trashing the planet with new mines and other nasty chemicals trying to avoid nuclear, only to turn around later when mining/materials become prohibitive and then turn to nuclear. Pity about how much of the environment we will trash between now and when we need to make that decision.

Reply
cbrapsycho says: 19 June 2024 at 10:34 pm

Do you think that AUKUS was the trojan horse to get nuclear accepted in Australia on the basis that we need it for our defence? Who gains financially from a nuclear industry in Australia?

Reply
cbrapsycho says: 20 June 2024 at 12:00 am

Vote Dutton and get dictatorship instead of democracy. He will put his nuclear power plants where he wants, requisitioning the sites where the owners don’t want to sell and forcing local communities to just accept it, no matter what the residents want. He will take taxpayer funds to pay for his nuclear dream, having no idea what it will cost but we will all need to stump up for his personal beliefs even though science says it is the most expensive and slowest option in Australia for power. There will always be unlimited funds for his pet projects whether it be policing, defence or border control but other services like health, education and supporting the vulnerable are likely to be sacrificed to achieve this heavily policed state of affairs.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews