By PHILIP HOPKINS
ENVIRONMENTALISTS in Gippsland maintain that nuclear energy is not a viable option for the region because it’s too expensive, its lengthy design and construction time make it too slow to replace coal, and it uses too much water.
“Australia boasts abundant renewable energy resources, being the sunniest continent in the world and among the windiest, making renewable energy abundant and affordable,” Gippsland Climate Change Network said in its submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into nuclear power.
The Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group said nuclear did not make economic sense.
“If it did, then private enterprise would be falling over itself to get involved. The fact that the taxpayer will need to finance them indicates the low possibility of them making an economic return,” the LVSG said in its submission.
The group said the transition to renewable, zero emissions technologies was well advanced already, with 40 per cent of the national energy market (NEM) generation coming from renewables in 2023 and expected to be more than 80 per cent by 2030 with current policy settings.
“We see no need to change horses mid-stream as this will just duplicate the power generation system and hence double the costs for everyone,” it said.
LVSG said nuclear electricity did not integrate well with renewable energy.
“Nuclear power is baseload, meaning that it needs to run as close to full generation capacity for nearly 100 per cent of the time,” the group said. Thus, nuclear could not deal with the fluctuations in supply from variable generation sources.
LVSG’s other arguments included:
Nuclear will not provide cheaper electricity, meaning industry, farms and businesses would not be competitive with Australia’s trading partners. Exporters will be particularly hit;
The prospect of a government-owned and operated nuclear station will scare off investors in large-scale wind and solar farms;
Overseas case studies show nuclear plants take 19 years to produce power from proposal to construction and operation;
Nuclear power stations require 20-25 per cent more cooling water than coal-fired stations, a critical issue given the stressed Latrobe River catchment;
None of the present operators intend to have anything to do with nuclear at their privately-owned sites. Compulsory acquisition will add to costs;
Decentralised electricity grids, such as a renewable energy grid have more advantages than a centralised grid due to system security, wealth distribution and national security, and;
Short and long-term disposal of nuclear waste.
Gippsland Climate Change Network (GCCN) said the Gippsland community needed to know that nuclear was safe. While nuclear operates successfully with advanced design, nuclear accidents can have catastrophic consequences – Three Mile Island (USA 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) and Fukushima (Japan 2011).
In Gippsland, there was inherent risks in energy production – the 1998 Esso Longford explosion, the 1986 West Kingfish Platform fire and the 2014 Hazelwood Mine fire.
“Safety protocols… cannot entirely eliminate risk. Situating nuclear facilities near or within urban areas would require an extraordinary level of community assurance and engagement,” the group said.
GCCN said nuclear water needs was a crucial issue.
“While proponents suggest reallocating water entitlements from coal-fired power plants as they close, this approach is problematic: even seven years post-closure, Hazelwood power station still draws on its 13GL entitlement for essential rehabilitation work on the mine void,” the group said.
Rehabilitation efforts to create lakes in the three main mine pits would require major water allocations well into the century. This would directly compete with the needs of Gippsland’s agricultural sector and place additional strain on ecosystems that support biodiversity and attract tourism.
GCCN went further, arguing that a nuclear station would damage Gippsland agriculture’s ‘clean, green’ image.
“According to a July 2024 statement from Australia’s Agriculture Ministers, international standards classify farms within an 80-kilometre radius of a nuclear site as an ‘ingestion exposure pathway’,” the group said.
In the US, the group says agricultural operations in these zones must take specific preventive measures in the event of a nuclear incident.
“These measures include providing livestock with uncontaminated feed and water, halting shipments, and decontaminating produce to prevent radiation from entering the food chain,” it said.
“The risk of contamination threatens not only the safety and quality of our agricultural products but also Gippsland’s ‘clean, green’ reputation. Farmers need clear assurances about how nuclear facilities would affect soil and water quality and what safeguards will be implemented to protect their livelihoods.”
GCCN said high-level nuclear radioactive waste remained hazardous for thousands of years.
“Countries with established nuclear industries often rely on interim storage solutions while they work to develop long-term disposal methods, such as deep geological repositories. However, these solutions come with ongoing concerns about security, potential environmental impact, and the risks of accidental leaks,” the group said.
“In Australia, we currently lack the infrastructure and technical workforce for both short and long-term high-level nuclear waste storage, meaning waste generated in Gippsland would probably need to be transported out of the region to a specialised facility that has yet to be constructed.
“This transportation poses additional risks, requiring lead-lined trucks and specialised containment methods to ensure radiation is contained. The impact of these heavy transports on local roads and infrastructure, along with the need for careful route planning to minimise the risk of accidents, demands careful consideration.”
