Australian Conservation Foundation report “Why nuclear is not right for Australia” July 2024
Dear NRPG members and interested,
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has just released a report on why nuclear power is not right for Australia “Power Games – Assessing coal to nuclear proposals” nuclear-power-report.pdf (nationbuilder.com) .
It concurs with other energy analysis by the Australian Energy Market Operator, CSIRO, Renew Economy, Energy Policy WA and others which show it is too slow to replace aging coal generators, and the delay will therefore require a large use of gas (with massive increase in emissions) in the interim, and significantly increase electricity costs from both gas an nuclear. Wind and solar with battery and other storage are by far the cheapest fastest way toward 100% renewable dispatchable (on-demand) energy to reduce our emissions drastically.
19 June 2024
NEW ACF report: Power games: Why nuclear is not right for Australia
The Coalition has made its announcement to set us on a path to a nuclear dystopia. The ACF has put out a report setting out in detail how this is a terrible future option and what are better pathways.
Power games: Why nuclear is not right for Australia
Australians should assume the need for extraordinary taxpayer subsidies, likely in the tens of billions of dollars, if a decision is made to pursue nuclear power.
A detailed new critique of nuclear energy, released today by the Australian Conservation Foundation, reveals:
– Australian taxpayers would foot a massive bill, likely in the tens of billions of dollars, for what is the slowest, most expensive form of power generation.
– Many of Australia’s leading insurance companies will not cover damage from a nuclear disaster.
– Even if legal prohibitions on nuclear were lifted in Australia, a nuclear power reactor could only begin operating around the mid-2040s and could only begin to contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions around 2050.
ACF’s CEO Kelly O’Shanassy said going nuclear would delay the transition to clean energy, increase household electricity bills, introduce the possibility of catastrophic accidents and create multi-generational risks associated with the management of high-level nuclear waste.
“There’s no chance a nuclear power station could be built in Australia before the mid-2040s, so if you’re promoting nuclear, you are prolonging the use of fossil fuels,” she said.
“Major solar and wind projects can be conceived, constructed and connected much quicker.
“When it comes to the cost, CSIRO modelling shows nuclear power is five to ten times more expensive to generate than solar or wind power.
“Be in no doubt, that extra costs of nuclear would be passed on to electricity users.
“Nuclear is an energy source the market doesn’t want. The big electricity utilities are not interested, nor are most private investors, so nuclear would require huge public subsidies.
“Nuclear reactors use tonnes of water every second to cool the reactors to produce electricity, unlike wind and solar, which require little or no water to generate power.
“Australians don’t need or want to take on the massive risks that accompany nuclear energy – catastrophic meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima, plus the intergenerational danger of storing high-level radioactive waste for centuries, with a likely disproportionate burden on First Nations communities and country.
“We cannot afford to squander more time in moving our economy away from its reliance on climate-damaging coal and gas. Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action.
“Australia is blessed with amazing clean energy resources. On environmental and economic grounds, our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”
Kind regards,
Steve Gates
President, NRPG Bushcarers