nuclear-news

Australia’s Opposition leader Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full

Giles Parkinson, Jun 21, 2024,   https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-plan-to-nuke-australias-renewable-energy-transition-explained-in-full/

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has outlined his plan to bring the renewable energy transition in Australia to a halt, keep coal fired power stations open, build more gas and use taxpayer funds to build nuclear power plants in the 2030s and 2040s – if the Coalition wins the next election.

Here is an explanation of the plan as far as we know it.

What are the details?

There are not many, because the nuclear “policy” has been released in a one page press release. The Coalition says it wants to build seven nuclear power plants – all at the site of current or former coal fired power stations – in five states. It favours a mix of small modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. It wants the first reactor built by 2035.

Where exactly will they be built?

Two sites in NSW (Liddell in the Hunter and Mt Piper near Lithgow), two in Queensland (at the Tarong and Callide power plants), one in Victoria (Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley), one in South Australia (Port Augusta), and one in Western Australia (Collie).

Are the site owners OK with that?

No, they say they haven’t been consulted and they say they have their own multi-billion dollar plans to build clean energy and industrial hubs. AGL CEO Damien Nicks says: “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive. ” However, the Coalition says if the site owners do not co-operate they will compulsory acquire the land needed.

Which technology will the Coalition use?

It’s not clear. Dutton wants to build small nuclear reactors at two sites, in South Australia and W.A. But SMRs do not exist yet, none have planning approval, and none even have licences to be built anywhere in the western world. Of the two large scale nuclear technologies cited, one (APR1400) has not been ordered anywhere in the world outside South Korea for 15 years. The other, the AP1000, sent its maker Westinghouse bankrupt in 2017 and was the technology used in the Vogtle reactor in the US whose massive delays and cost overruns might make it the last ever built in that country.

When is the timeline for the Coalition nuclear build?

The Coalition wants the first SMR up and running by 2035, and the first large-scale nuclear plant by 2037, with the rest in the 2040s.

Is that realistic?

No. SMRs – for all intents and purposes – haven’t been invented yet. There is no design in any western country that has even been licensed, let alone been given approvals or started construction. Globally, the industry is hopeful of getting the first up by the end of the decade. Even Canada, with a well established nuclear industry and an available site, says it is unlikely to have the second SMR up and running by 2035.

The timelines for large-scale nuclear are even longer. All four projects built or under construction in the last three decades in the US, France, Finland and the UK have suffered massive delays and cost over-runs. Australia has no regulatory platform, and no existing industry, apart from the small reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Even pro-nuclear advocates like former chief scientist Alan Finkel say nuclear cannot realistically be delivered in Australia until the 2040s.

What are the costs?

The Coalition hasn’t said anything about costs, which is not surprising. SMRs have not been built and the only one that got close was cancelled by its would-be customers because it would have been hideously expensive. The Coalition’s timeline of 2035 means it wants to be an early adopter. The CSIRO puts the costs at more than $600/MWh, which might be palatable for a technology used only rarely for evening peaks, but such a price for “always on” power would be insane.

Would it lead to lower bills?

All Australian and international studies show that the Coalition’s choice of technologies – nuclear, gas and carbon capture – are by far the most expensive. See CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard, and BloombergNEF. Energy analysts say the growing reliance on gas power while renewables are stopped and coal kept on line would lead to soaring prices and an extra $1,000 on annual bills for the average household. The nuclear rollout will be entirely funded and subsidised by the taxpayer, which means that – as in France, Ontario and elsewhere – the costs of nuclear would be borne by the government and hidden from consumer bills.

What would happen to emissions?

Emissions will rise significantly if the Coalition puts its plan into action. One study suggests it would result in some 2.3 billion tonnes of additional carbon emissions over the Australian Energy Market Operator’s step change scenario.

What about Australia’s obligations to the Paris climate treaty?

The Coalition has made clear it will not seek to meet the current interim target of a 43 per cent cut in emissions. That means it is effectively ignoring the climate treaty, which requires no back-tracking on committed targets.

What about the net zero by 2050 target?

The Coalition says it still intends to meet that – but, by stopping wind and solar and building more gas, that target looks impossible under their plan.

The Coalition says the sites were chosen because they will not need new transmission. Is that true?

No. The site owners have their own plans. In Port Augusta, for instance, the grid capacity has already been mostly taken up by new wind, solar and batteries. “The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true,” says South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsanstonis. “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.” And the large-scale nuclear reactors cited by Dutton will be twice the size of any existing unit in Australia, so it will need more grid infrastructure, and also more “back-up” in case those units fail.

The Coalition says the market operator has warned that the reliance on wind and solar will mean the lights will go out. Is that true?

No. The Australian Energy Market Operator says the biggest threat to energy reliability and security is the failure of ageing and increasingly unreliable coal fired generators.

The Coalition says wind and solar cannot power modern economies and businesses. Is that true?

No. The owners of Australia’s biggest smelters and refineries, including Rio Tinto and Ark Energy, are contracting multiple gigawatts of wind and solar to power their assets. South Australia says it has been flooded with inquiries from business with more than 2 GW of energy demand seeking to move to the state to access cheap wind and solar.

The Coalition says wind and solar cannot provide more than 10 per cent of the energy mix without causing problems. Is that true?

No. South Australia already enjoys a 75 per cent share of wind and solar, and the isolated W.A. grid has had 36 per cent wind and solar over the past year. The market operator says instantaneous levels of 100 per cent should be achieved in coming years.

The Coalition says the Labor government wants to build 28,000 km of new transmission lines by 2030. Is that true?

No. The market operator’s system plan envisages just over 5,000 km by 2030, one third of which have already been built, and some of the rest needed by growth in population and industry. The 28,000 km number comes from the “green export superpower” scenario and is for 2050. That assumes a switch from fossil fuel exports to green industries (steel, power, ammonia), and would likely be required whatever the technology.

Isn’t nuclear banned in Australia?

Yes, at federal and state levels. If the Coalition wants to repeal the laws it will need to get it through both houses of parliament, and who knows where the numbers will be after the next election, with the two-party preferred polls even stevens and any number of independents and minor parties also likely to emerge.

Do the states want nuclear?

No. The Labor governments in Queensland, NSW and Victoria have state laws against nuclear and intend to keep them. LNP Opposition leader David Crusafulli, favoured to take power in Queensland’s election in October, is also against nuclear. State governments in Western Australia, South Australia and even the Liberals in Tasmania are also opposed to nuclear, but legal experts say if the Commonwealth pulls rank, it is heading for the courts.

What if local communities object?

Nationals leader David Littleproud has spent the last few years defending the right of communities to oppose wind, solar, battery and transmission projects, and has demanded a pause and a “re-set.” But he says the Coalition will brook no opposition to its nuclear plans. If local communities don’t like it, tough luck. “We need strong leadership in this country, to have the courage of its convictions, to follow through and to make the tough calls in the national interest,” he told the ABC.

What will be the future of large-scale renewables under a Coalition government?

If the Coalition wins power, it won’t be good. Littleproud wants them stopped, and has vowed to rip up contracts written by the Commonwealth under the Capacity Investment Scheme, which could have 12 GW of capacity lined up over the next 12 months. States may plough on, but will face roadblocks and vetoes on projects. Investors say they need certainty.

So what is the real strategy here?

It’s pretty clear that the strategy is less about building nuclear and more about stopping renewables and protecting the fossil fuel industry, something that the Coalition has not been shy about for the last two decades. It will lead to higher costs, more emissions, squandered industry opportunities, and make the grid less reliable.

Will the strategy work?

Quite possibly. To people in the industry, pushing nuclear and walking away from Australia’s low cost wind and solar resources is nuts – from an engineering, economic and environmental point of view. But 95 per cent of people do not know, and are not interested in, the fine details of the complex energy system. They just want cheap power and the lights to stay on.

And to many of them the Coalition’s fear mongering may sound entirely plausible, particularly when the obvious misinformation is not contradicted by mainstream media – with a few notable exceptions such as The Guardian. See Trump, see Aboriginal voice referendum.

The fossil fuel industry is funding a massive campaign on social media to share simple and effective stories that make nuclear sound sensible and wind and solar as madness. They didn’t just think of this yesterday. If the renewable energy industry and Labor are not careful, they will lose this battle for hearts and minds.

Wow, that was exhausting. Do you need a lie down?

Yes.

June 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

   Australia’s Opposition leader Peter Dutton launches highly personal attack on Prime Minister Albanese, calling him ‘a child in a man’s body’ while spruiking his new nuclear direction.

• Peter Dutton addressed party faithful in Sydney
• Painted PM Albanese as weak leader

By MICHAEL PICKERING FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA and WILLIAM TON and ANDREW BROWN FOR AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS, 22 June 2024

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton told Liberal Party faithful Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was ‘a child in a man’s body’ in a highly personal attack on Saturday. 

Mr Dutton spoke to a federal council meeting of Liberal Party politicians, administrators and members in Sydney in which he painted Mr Albanese as ‘weak’ and a leader who told people ‘what they want to hear, not what needs to be said’. 

‘He’s a man with a mind still captured in his university years; he’s a child in a man’s body,’ Mr Dutton said………. The opposition leader has cast the next federal election as defining Australia’s ‘future and fate’ with voters to decide the nation’s path forward on energy.

Australians will decide their energy future at the next election, says the opposition leader while slamming the government’s ‘reckless’ renewables policy and spruiking his nuclear pledge.

‘The next election will not only define the next political term, it will define the future and fate of this nation,’ he said.

Voters will have to choose the path they want to take including the nation’s energy future amid soaring power costs, Mr Dutton said.

‘A choice between Labor’s reckless renewables-only policy that will see the energy bills of Australians soar even more,’ he said.

‘Or the coalition’s plan for cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy, which includes our visionary plan to become a nuclear-powered nation and to do the right thing by the environment.’

It follows the coalition on Wednesday unveiling plans for seven nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired power stations, should it win government.

The plan prompted safety concerns in regional areas where the reactors are due to be built, as well as criticism over the coalition not releasing any costings.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was panned for adhering to ‘unachievable’ renewable emissions targets, which the opposition said are blowing the budgets of Australians.

‘He’s more interested in appeasing the international climate lobby than sticking up for the interests of everyday Australians,’ Mr Dutton said.

‘I will be someone who doesn’t shirk the hard and necessary decisions which must be made in our national interest in these tough and precarious times.’

Opposition frontbencher Paul Fletcher dismissed fears the nuclear policy could make metropolitan electorates harder to win at the next election, saying it demonstrated the party’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.

The coalition faced significant challenges at the 2022 federal election in blue-ribbon, inner-city seats from teal independents, who pledged greater action on climate change.

While the reactors would be built in regional locations, Mr Fletcher said those in inner city areas would also embrace the idea of nuclear.

Under the plan, it would take until 2035 to 2037 at the earliest for the first facility to be built.

Assistant Climate Change and Energy Minister Jenny McAllister hit out at the nuclear policy which she said was expensive and risky.

‘Today Peter Dutton could’ve answered the many questions Australians have about his risky nuclear plan but all they got was more of the same nasty negativity and politics,’ she said.

‘Peter Dutton demands a mature debate but instead launches personal attacks. Peter Dutton demands lower power prices but opposes energy price relief and is unable or unwilling to say how much his nuclear plans will cost Australian taxpayers.

‘Australians deserve better.’

June 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s Opposition leader Peter Dutton refuses to answer key questions about his nuclear power plan

Key question Peter Dutton refuses to answer about his nuclear power plan

• Peter Dutton refused to answer question
• He was probed about nuclear power policy

By NCA NEWSWIRE and ELEANOR CAMPBELL FOR NCA NEWSWIRE, 16 June 2024  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13534571/Key-question-Peter-Dutton-refuses-answer-nuclear-power-plan.html

Peter Dutton has again refused to reveal key details on the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, declaring he would consider announcing his alternative 2035 emissions reduction goal if the government released modelling on interim climate targets.

In a fiery interview on Sunday with Sky’s Sunday Agenda host Andrew Clennell, the federal Opposition Leader became defensive after being pressed to reveal the locations and costings of his six proposed nuclear power plants.

Mr Dutton said he would reveal the opposition’s energy plan within ‘weeks’ in March but again declined to spell out the full details of his vision for Australia’s energy transition.

‘What we’ve said, the sites that we’re looking at are only those sites where there’s an end-of-life coal-fired power stations,’ he told Sky on Sunday.

‘One of the main reasons is that people in those communities know that they’re going when coal goes and we have the ability to sustain heavy industry, we have the ability to keep the lights on.’

A recent report from peak scientific body CSIRO suggested that building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5bn and take at least 15 years to deliver.

The Coalition has refused to confirm reports of the locations of up to seven proposed power sites, which according to speculation, include sites in two Liberal-held seats and four or five Nationals-held seats.

Potential sites include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and potentially a plant in the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud.

When pressed on the locations of the sites, Mr Dutton responded: ‘We’ve said that we’re looking at between six and seven sites, and we’ll make an announcement at the time of our choosing, not of Labor’s choosing.’

When asked if a power plant would be placed on each of the unspecified sites, Mr Dutton did not answer directly, saying only that he would consider output and environmental impact.

The Opposition Leader was then asked if the plants would be government subsidised, and responded by saying all power sources, other than coal, receives funding.

‘We’ll make an announcement in due course, but I just make the point that wind and solar don’t work without government subsidy,’ he said.

Mr Dutton also came under scrutiny this week after revealing he would oppose a legislated 2030 carbon emissions target at the next election.

Asked directly if he would consider a 2035 interim reduction target, which would be legally required under the 2015 Paris agreement, the Liberal leader said he would ‘take advice’ from the treasury before changing climate legislation, citing concerns about the nation’s economic situation

‘I think we have a look at all of that information and if there were settings we need to change … it doesn’t mean exiting Paris or walking away from our clear commitment to be net zero by 2050,’ he said.

Mr Dutton was asked for a second time if he would set a 2035 target, but again spoke at length about cost of living pressures facing the country.

Trade Minister Don Farrell said Mr Dutton’s comments were ‘outrageous’ and argued watered down climate commitments would damage Australia’s standing with its international allies.

‘It’s beyond the pale to be perfectly honest,’ Mr Farrell said on Sunday.

‘We went to the last election committing to a 2030 target and despite what Mr Dutton might say, we’re on track to meet that target.’

June 17, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Summary of Australian federal and state/territory nuclear/uranium laws and prohibitions

Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick guide

From Jim Green, 30 May 2024

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2324/Quick_Guides/NuclearActivitiesProhibitions
PDF Version [564KB]
Dr Emily Gibson
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources; Law and Bills Digest Sections
This quick guide provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under Commonwealth, state and territory laws. It considers the primary legislation most relevant to current policy debates about domestic nuclear energy only and consequently does not consider recent changes to Commonwealth law to facilitate Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.[1] It also does not include consideration of Australia’s international obligations in respect of nuclear activities, including the safeguarding of nuclear materials and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

If a domestic nuclear energy industry were to progress, it is expected that a comprehensive framework for the safety, security and safeguarding of the related nuclear material would need to be legislated to accommodate such an industry.[2] Consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.

What are nuclear activities?

A nuclear activity is any process or step in the utilisation of material capable of undergoing nuclear fission; that is, any activities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[3] Nuclear activities therefore include:

• mining of nuclear or radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium milling, refining, treatment, processing, reprocessing, fabrication or enrichment of nuclear material  
• the production of nuclear energy 
• the construction, operation or decommissioning of a mine, plant, facility, structure, apparatus or equipment used in the above activities
• the use, storage, handling, transportation, possession, acquisition, abandonment or disposal of nuclear materials, apparatus or equipment.

Prohibitions on nuclear activities

Commonwealth

Nuclear activities are regulated under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998

The ARPANS Act establishes a licensing framework for controlled persons (including a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth contractor) in relation to controlled facilities (a nuclear installation, a prescribed radiation facility, or a prescribed legacy site).[4] A nuclear installation includes a nuclear reactor for research or the production of radioactive materials for industrial or medical use, and a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018.[5]

The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency   (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7]

However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act establishes 9 matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and provides for the assessment and approval of these actions if the action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the MNES.[9] ‘Nuclear actions’ are one of the MNES.[10] Where a nuclear action is determined to be a controlled action (that is, one likely to have a significant impact and requiring assessment and approval under the Act), the assessment considers the impact of a nuclear action on the environment generally (including people and communities).[11]

The Act establishes offences for the taking of nuclear actions in those circumstances.[14]

Similarly, the Act provides that a relevant entity (as set out below) must not take an action (including a nuclear action) unless a requisite approval has been obtained under Part 9 of the Act or a relevant exception applies:

• a person must not take a relevant action on Commonwealth land that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment[15]   
•  a person must not take a relevant action outside Commonwealth land if the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land[16]  
• the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not take inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction.[17]

The Act establishes offences and civil penalty provisions for the taking of an action in those circumstances.[18]

Subsection 140A(1) prohibits the Minister for the Environment from granting an approval for a nuclear action relating to specified nuclear installations. These installations are a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant, and a reprocessing facility.

Potential reform of the nuclear action trigger

The second independent review of the EPBC Act, completed in October 2020 by Professor Graeme Samuel (Samuel Review), recommended that the nuclear actions MNES be retained.[19] The review recommended that ‘the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements of [ARPANSA] should be aligned, to support the implementation of best-practice international approaches based on risk of harm to the environment, including the community’.[20]

In 2022, the Government’s Nature Positive Plan adopted this approach and stated, ‘[a] uniform national approach to regulation of radiation will be delivered through the new National Environmental Standards’.

In February 2024, a policy draft of the National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance indicates that ‘nuclear actions’ will be renamed ‘radiological exposure actions’ and states:

Relevant decisions must:

   Not be inconsistent with the ARPANSA national codesfor protection from radiological exposure actions including in relation to:   

1.  human health and environmental risks and outcomes; and. radiological impacts on biological diversity, 
2. the conservation of species and the natural health of ecosystems.[22]

States and territories

States and territories generally regulate nuclear and radiation activities through either the health or the environmental protection portfolios. The relevant legislation provides for the protection of health and safety of people, and the protection of property and the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation by establishing licensing regimes to regulate the possession, use, and transportation of radiation sources and substances.[23] Mining of radioactive materials is regulated through the resources portfolio.

In addition, as outlined below, the states and territories have legislation prohibiting certain nuclear activities or the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities. Importantly, where permitted, nuclear activities (including mining) would also be subject to assessment and approvals under a range of other legislation, including planning and environmental impact assessment, native title and cultural heritage, and radiation licensing laws at the state or territory and Commonwealth level.

New South Wales

Exploration for uranium has been permitted under the Mining Act 1992 since 2012.[24] However, the mining of uranium is prohibited by the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 (NSW Prohibitions Act).[25]

The NSW Prohibitions Act also prohibits the construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment facilities, fabrication and reprocessing plants, nuclear power plants, and storage and waste disposal facilities (other than for the storage and disposal of waste from research or medical purposes, or the relevant radiological licensing Act).[26]

Northern Territory

The Atomic Energy Act 1953 (Cth) provides that the Commonwealth owns all uranium found in the territories.[27] Uranium exploration and mining in the Northern Territory (NT) is regulated under both NT mining laws (the Mineral Titles Act 2010 and the Mining Management Act 2001) and the Atomic Energy Act.^[28] The Ranger Uranium Mine operated until 2021 and is now undergoing rehabilitation.[29]

The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT.[30] Nuclear waste is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.[31]

This Act also:

•  prohibits public funds from being expended, granted or advanced to any person for, or for encouraging or financing any activity associated with the development, construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility  
•  would require the NT Parliament to hold an inquiry into the likely impact of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed by the Commonwealth on the cultural, environmental and socio‑economic wellbeing of the territory.[32]

Queensland

Exploration for and mining of uranium are permitted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. However, it has been government policy to not grant mining leases for uranium since 2015.[33] The government policy ban extends to the treatment or processing of uranium within the state.[34]

The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007, in similar terms to the NSW Prohibitions Act, prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle.[35]

Unlike other state and territory prohibition legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act would require the responsible Queensland Minister to hold a plebiscite to gain the views of the Queensland population if the Minister was satisfied that the Commonwealth Government has taken, or is likely to take, steps to amend a Commonwealth law or exercise a power under a Commonwealth law to facilitate the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility, or if the Commonwealth Government adopts a policy position of supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.[36]

South Australia

The exploration and mining of radioactive material (including uranium) is permitted in South Australia (SA), subject to approvals under the Mining Act 1971 and the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 (RP&C Act).[37] For example, uranium is mined at Olympic Dam, Four Mile and Honeymoon. However, conversion and enrichment activities are prohibited by the RP&C Act.[38]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 prohibits the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility.[39]

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facilities.^[40] The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised under a Commonwealth law.[41]

Tasmania

The exploration and mining of atomic substances (which includes uranium and thorium) is permitted under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (Tas), subject to approval.

Victoria

The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits a range of activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including the exploration and mining of uranium and thorium, and the construction or operation of facilities for the conversion or enrichment of any nuclear material, nuclear reactors and facilities for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from those prohibited activities.[42]

Western Australia

Exploration for and mining of uranium is permitted under the Mining Act 1978. A state policy ban on mining approvals was overturned in November 2008;[43] however, this was reinstated in June 2017, with a ‘no uranium’ condition on future mining leases.[44] The ban does not apply to 4 projects that had already been approved by the previous government.

The Nuclear Activities Regulation Act 1978 aims to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from possible harmful effects of nuclear activities, including by regulating the mining and processing of uranium and the equipment used in those processes. The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 also prohibits the storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste (including waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons).[45]

Can the Commonwealth override a state ban on nuclear activities?

The Commonwealth Parliament only has the power to make laws in relation to matters specified in the Constitution of Australia, including in sections 51, 52 and 122. Assuming the Commonwealth has a sufficient head of power to legislate, section 109 of the Constitution specifically provides for circumstances in which there might be an inconsistency between Commonwealth and state laws:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Therefore, even though some states have enacted prohibitions on certain nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, the Commonwealth Parliament could enact specific legislation in relation to nuclear activities so that such activities can take place within those jurisdictions. One such example is the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth), which provides for the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility at a site to be declared by the responsible Commonwealth Minister. Section 12 of that Act provides that state and territory laws have no effect in regulating, hindering, or preventing such a facility

Further information

• ‘Who we regulate’, ARPANSA 
•  ‘State & territory regulators’, ARPANSA    
• ‘Uranium and thorium’, in Geoscience Australia, Australia’s Energy Commodity Resources, 2023 Edition, (Canberra: Geoscience Australia, 2023).

June 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Damning scientific report condemns the Australian Opposition’s push for nuclear power

Coalition’s brave nuke world a much harder sell after new CSIRO report

Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/26/coalitions-brave-nuke-world-a-much-harder-sell-after-new-csiro-report?CMP=soc_568

The agency’s GenCost analysis says a first nuclear plant for Australia would deliver power ‘no sooner than 2040’ and could cost more than $17bn

The Coalition’s pitch on nuclear energy for Australia has had two recurring themes: the electricity will be cheap and it could be deployed within a decade.

CSIRO’s latest GenCost report – a document that analyses the costs of a range of electricity generation technologies – contradicts both of these points. It makes the Coalition’s job of selling nuclear power plants to Australians ever more challenging.

For the first time, the national science agency has calculated the potential costs of large-scale nuclear electricity in a country that banned the generation technology more than a quarter of a century ago.

Even using a set of generous assumptions, the CSIRO says a first nuclear plant would deliver power “no sooner than 2040” and could cost more than $17bn.

It is likely to spark an attack on the credibility of the report from nuclear advocates and those opposed to the rollout of renewable energy. Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has already attacked the report.

In the meantime, Australia waits for the Coalition to say what kind of reactors it would deploy, where it would put them and how much it thinks they would cost.

Now that CSIRO has released its report, here’s what we know about the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia.

What’s new on nuclear costs?

CSIRO’s GenCost report says a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant would cost about $8.6bn to build, but that comes with some large caveats. The main one is that this was the theoretical cost of a reactor in an Australia that already had an established and continuous program of building reactors.

The $8.6bn is based on costs in South Korea, which does have a continuous reactor building program and is one country the least beset by cost blowouts.

To make the cost more relevant, CSIRO compared the Australian and South Korean costs of building modern coal plants. Costs were more than double in Australia.

But CSIRO warns the first nuclear plants in Australia would be subject to a “first of a kind” premium that could easily double the $8.6bn build cost.

In the UK, a country that has been building reactors intermittently, costs for its under-construction Hinkley C reactor (more than three times the size of a theoretical 1,000MW reactor in Australia) started at $34bn and could now be as high as $89bn.

In the United States, the country’s largest nuclear plant has just turned on its final unit seven years behind schedule and at double the initial cost. There are no more nuclear plants under construction in the country.

What about the cost of the electricity?

CSIRO also offers cost estimates for the electricity produced by large-scale reactors, but those too assume a continuous nuclear building program in Australia.

Electricity from large-scale reactors would cost between $141 per megawatt hour and $233/MWh if they were running in 2030, according to GenCost.

Combining solar and wind would provide power at between $73 and $128/MWh – figures that include the costs of integrating renewables, such as building transmission lines and energy storage.

What about those small modular reactors?

The Coalition has also advocated for so-called “small modular reactors” which are not commercially available and, CSIRO says, are unlikely to be available to build in Australia until 2040.

One United States SMR project lauded by the Coalition collapsed in late 2023 because the cost of the power was too high.

That project, CSIRO says, was significant because its design had nuclear commission approval and was “the only recent estimate from a real project that was preparing to raise finance for the construction stage. As such, its costs are considered more reliable than theoretical projects.”

GenCost reports that power from a theoretical SMR in 2030 would cost between $230 and $382/MWh – much higher than solar and wind or large-scale nuclear.

How quickly could Australia build a nuclear plant?

Nuclear advocates tend to point to low nuclear power costs in countries that have long-established nuclear industries.

Australia has no expertise in building nuclear power, no infrastructure, no regulatory agency, no nuclear workforce and a public that is yet to have a serious proposition put in front of it.

Australia’s electricity grid is fast evolving from one dominated by large coal-fired power plants to one engineered for and dominated by solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro with gas-fired power working as a rarely used backup.

This creates a major problem for the Coalition, because CSIRO estimates “if a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040.”

Tony Wood, head of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, says: “By 2040, the coal-fired power stations will be in their graves. What do you do in the meantime?”

“You could keep the coal running, but that would become very expensive,” he says, pointing to the ageing coal fleet that is increasingly beset by outages.

Wood says the GenCost report is only a part of the story when it comes to understanding nuclear.

The Coalition, he says, would need to explain how much it would cost to build an electricity system to accommodate nuclear.

Could you just drop nuclear into the grid?

The biggest piece of generation kit on Australia’s electricity grid is a single 750 megawatt coal-fired unit at Kogan Creek in Queensland. Other power stations are larger but they are made up of a series of smaller units.

But the smallest of the “large-scale” nuclear reactors are about 1,000MW and most are 1,400MW.

Electricity system engineers have to build-in contingency plans if large units either trip or have to be pulled offline for maintenance. That contingency costs money.

In Australia’s current electricity system, the GenCost report says larger nuclear plants would probably “require the deployment of more generation units in reserve than the existing system consisting of units of 750MW or less.”

But by the time a theoretical nuclear plant could be deployed, most if not all the larger coal-fired units will be gone.

Who might build Australian nukes?

Some energy experts have questioned whether any company would be willing to take up a contract to build a reactor in Australia when there are existing nuclear nations looking to expand their fleets.

Right now, nuclear reactors are banned federally and in several states.

The GenCost report also points to another potential cost-raiser for nuclear – a lack of political bipartisanship.

The report says: “Without bipartisan support, given the historical context of nuclear power in Australia, investors may have to consider the risk that development expenses become stranded by future governments.”

May 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Australia can learn from the American experience with nuclear power

Amory B Lovins, May 21, 2024,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-can-learn-from-the-american-experience-with-nuclear-power/#google_vignette

During my current visit to Australia I’ve been surprised to see nuclear power promoted by the federal Coalition and by certain media.

Rather than fact-check the questionable claims of nuclear proponents, let me here outline the recent experience with nuclear power in my home country, the United States, and then discuss how that experience could inform the energy debate in Australia.

Nuclear power in the US is in decline. A dozen reactors have been shut down over the past decade — 41 in all. The decline will continue because US reactors average 42 years old, beyond their original design life. Of 259 US power reactors ordered since 1955, 94 are still in service; by 2017, only 28 remained competitive and hadn’t suffered at least one outage of at least a year. That’s an 11 percent success rate.

Only two nuclear power construction projects have commenced this century, and Australians should take careful note of those projects’ failure despite massive government support.

The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, began construction for an estimated US$11.5bn total in 2013. It was abandoned in 2017 after costs rose to US$25bn, wasting US$9bn. Westinghouse soon filed for bankruptcy protection.

In addition to a $US9 billion hole in the ground, the V.C. Summer fiasco gave rise to the ‘nukegate’ scandal, a web of corruption that has already seen some culprits jailed with others likely to follow.

The other US reactor construction project was the Vogtle project in Georgia, also comprising two AP1000 reactors. It was recently completed but many years behind schedule and at extravagant cost, echoing similar experience in Finland, France, and the UK. 

Westinghouse said in 2006 that it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion. The Vogtle project’s final cost was over 10 times greater at US$17.5 billion per reactor. That money that would have been far better spent on renewables and energy efficiency programs. Buying nuclear power instead displaced less fossil fuel per year and per dollar, worsening climate change.

Small modular reactors

The failure of large reactor construction projects has led the industry to pivot to so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). But SMRs don’t exist, unless you count two demonstration plants in Russia and China. SMRs are unlikely to improve the safety, security or waste problems of large reactors, and SMRs’ economics are even more unattractive than large reactors’.

NuScale Power, leading America’s most advanced SMR project, recently abandoned its flagship project in Idaho due to soaring costs despite about US$4bn in US government subsidies. With no other credible customers, the firm seems more likely to go bankrupt than to build any SMRs.

NuScale’s most recent cost estimate was an astronomical US$9.3 billion for a 462 megawatt (MW) plant with six 77-MW reactors. That’s US$20,100 per kilowatt (kW). Compare the actual 2023 market prices per kW found by leading US investment firm Lazard: US$700-1400 for utility scale solar PV and US$1025-1700 for onshore wind. 

Nuclear’s higher capital cost per kW far outweighs its greater output per kW, leaving it several-fold out of the money before counting its substantial operating costs. And including grid integration costs would actually widen nuclear’s disadvantage because its outages tend to be bigger, longer, sharper, and less predictable than solar and wind power’s variations, requiring more and costlier backup.

Other companies hoping to develop SMRs or so-called ‘advanced’ reactors are faring no better. Indeed a pro-nuclear lobby group noted late last year that efforts to commercialize a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear enthusiasts not to “whistle past this graveyard”.

Coal-to-nuclear

The Coalition’s energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claims that “evidence keeps mounting that a coal-to-nuclear strategy is good for host communities, and especially workers as zero-emissions nuclear plants offer more jobs and higher paying ones.”

No evidence from the US supports Mr. O’Brien’s views. Several hundred coal power plants have closed in the US since 2010 but zero have been replaced with nuclear reactors.

Mr. O’Brien has promoted Terrapower’s plan to replace coal with nuclear in Wyoming but the company is at the early stages of a licensing process and it is unclear whether finance can be secured or whether the adventurous new technology can ever get built and compete on the grid despite about US$2bn of government subsidy.

In 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were pending in the US. Nothing eventuated other than the abandoned South Carolina project and the recently completed Georgia project. No reactors — large or small — are currently under construction in the US. For the time being at least, we’re being spared the economic and climate costs of further disastrous nuclear projects.

Lessons for Australia

What lessons can Australia learn from the US experience?

Industry claims should be treated with skepticism. Early cost estimates for the Vogtle project were out by a factor of 10. Westinghouse’s claim that it could build an AP1000 reactor in “approximately 36 months” also proved to be wildly inaccurate: the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to build; closer to 20 years if you include the planning and licensing process.

Proponents claiming that Australia could have reactors operating by the mid-2030s are sadly mistaken. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will have closed long before nuclear reactors could take their place in the energy market.

It’s vital that Australians consider the fact that you would be starting a nuclear power industry with none of the United States’ 70-plus years’ experience – despite which 42 reactor projects were abandoned, 41 built but closed, and scores now operate only thanks to government rescues. It would be folly to imagine that Australia can do better.

The point was made sharply by NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet. A former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, Dr Durrant-Whyte said: “The hard reality is Australia has no skills or experience in nuclear power plant building, operation or maintenance – let alone in managing the fuel cycle. Realistically, Australia will be starting from scratch in developing skills in the whole nuclear power supply chain.”

Likewise, former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel states: “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.”

I’m pleased to learn that the Australian government aims to double renewable supply to the National Energy Market to reach 82 percent by 2030. It’s especially impressive to witness the world-class renewable energy revolution in South Australia, where renewables provide 74 percent of electricity on average and the state government aims to reach 100 percent net renewables as soon as 2027.

Nuclear power is a minor distraction, adding each year at best only as much electricity supply as renewables add every few days. It has no business case or operational need anywhere. Especially it has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.

Amory Lovins has been an energy advisor to major firms and governments in 70+ countries for 50+ years; has authored 31 books and about 900 papers; is an integrative designer of superefficient buildings, factories, and vehicles; and has won many of the world’s top energy and environmental awards. He is Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.

May 24, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment