3 Easy Actions You Can Take Against Nuclear

Tip: you don’t have to know everything to have a say. Simply asking questions, and raising your concerns in a public forum is useful.

Whats actually happening?
After decades of inaction and climate denial, Dutton’s LNP coalition is pushing a proposal to build nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia, with one of these at the Loy Yang coal-fired power station just outside Traralgon. The plan would be funded by taxpayers and override existing state bans on nuclear energy.

Experts, including studies from the CSIRO, have highlighted that nuclear energy would actually cost consumers at least twice as much as renewable energy, and take more than 15 years to build, with little impact on reducing climate pollution until at least 2050.

Remember, it doesn’t have to be a long letter. Short and sweet letters can be incredibly powerful. Make it personal to you – how are you affected? What are your biggest concerns?

Here are some information points to help get you started:

1. Nuclear will take too long

Australia has no nuclear energy industry, so developing the required infrastructure, regulations and training programs needed would be a long process. The most credible estimates show nuclear wouldn’t be producing any energy in Australia until at least 2040.[1]

If we were to stop building renewable energy and wait for nuclear, we would need to keep old coal burning power stations running that are already unreliable and expensive to operate. That would generate more than two billion additional tons of climate pollution between now and 2050, compared to the Australian energy market operators’ latest energy transition plan. [2]

Alternatively, wind and solar projects can be up and operational within a couple of years. [3]

2. It’s expensive (for taxpayers and energy consumers)

Estimates from the CSIRO demonstrate that nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity, meaning it would drive up energy bills.

Best case scenario, constructing just one nuclear plant would cost $8.65 billion. Since Australia has never built a nuclear power station before it’s likely this price would be higher, potentially $17 billion or more. [4]

Nuclear energy projects have a long history of delays and massive cost blowouts. In the UK, the Hinkley Point C reactor was originally budgeted to cost $35 billion (AUD) but will now cost up to $94 billion (AUD). And this is in a country that already has an established nuclear industry.[5]

These extraordinary costs are passed on to every household and business through energy bills, and/or paid directly by taxpayers.

3. Nuclear is unnecessary

In 2010 just 10% of our electricity production came from renewable energy, but by 2023 that number had climbed to almost 40%. [6]

Rapid advances in clean energy technology, including large-scale batteries, as well as changes in the way we consume energy, means we no longer require energy grids to be designed around the old ‘baseload’ model, where large, centralised power stations operated at a constant rate and can’t quickly or efficiently vary their output.

Clean energy grids are being designed around a combination of variable but predictable solar and wind, and dispatchable sources. ‘Dispatchable’ means they can quickly ramp up and down their output like batteries and pumped hydro.

This is a new way of designing an energy grid. But AEMO’s 2024 Integrated System Plan shows exactly how it is possible using the technology we already have.

Additionally, for Gippslander’s, this nuclear proposal puts at risk the planned $40 billion investment over the next decade in renewable energy projects and the good jobs in clean energy that come with it.

4. Radioactive waste puts future generations at risk

Since the 1990s, Australia has attempted to establish national facilities for storing and disposing of low-and-intermediate-level radioactive waste, but all efforts have failed. This track record does not inspire confidence in the ability to safely manage the far more complex high-level nuclear waste that a nuclear power program would generate.

The storage of high-level radioactive waste remains a significant global challenge, as it remains hazardous for thousands of years.

Under the LNP’s proposal, large volumes of this waste would be stored on-site for up to 100 years, without clear plans for management, transportation, or cost.

5. It uses too much water

The World Economic Forum states that water consumption for nuclear power is:
2,870 to 3,270 (l/MWh) litres per megawatt-hour
far thirstier than coal
1,220 to 2,270 l/MWh
and gas
700 to 1,200 l/MWh

A standard 1,000-megawatt reactor consumes 36.3 to 65.4 million litres per day (13.2 to 23.9 billion litres per year). [7]

Water is already scarce in the Latrobe Valley and mine operators are presently attempting to solve the problem of the vast amounts of water required for rehabilitation of the three large brown coal mines In the Latrobe Valley – Hazelwood, which closed in 2017 and Yallourn and Loy Yang. The water currently used by Loy Yang A is earmarked to fill the open cut coal mine (for safety and stability) for 30 years after the coal fired power stops in 2035. Therefore, the water is allocated to mine stability until at least 2065. [8]

Water scarcity has been a problem for nuclear reactors in other jurisdictions. In France, nuclear was turned off or down because water in inland rivers became scarce, and/or became too warm to cool the reactor. This raises the question of what happens to the power system and other water users when Gippsland is in drought. [9]

6. Nuclear reactors are harmful for workers and nearby communities

Medical professionals and public health experts have raised significant concerns about the health risks posed by nuclear energy, emphasizing that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure. Research has shown that living within 30 kilometers of a nuclear reactor increases the risk of cancer by 5%, with thyroid cancer rates rising by 14% and leukemia by 9%. Furthermore, a long-term study of over 300,000 nuclear workers across France, the UK, and the US found elevated rates of cancer, heart attacks, and strokes, suggesting that even low doses of radiation carry substantial health risks.

Experts such as Dr. Margaret Beavis from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War stress that all radiation exposure accumulates over time and contributes to long-term health issues. These findings challenge the notion that low-level radiation is harmless, highlighting the potential for significant health impacts on both nearby communities and industry workers.

Nuclear accidents, though rare, have proven to have catastrophic, long-lasting consequences, as seen in incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. [10]