A Parliamentary Inquiry is currently underway concerning nuclear energy for Australia.

Parliamentary Inquiry on Nuclear Energy

The closing date for submissions is 15 November 2024

There is to be a hearing in Traralgon on 3 December.

Terms of reference and membership of the committee can be found here

Terms of reference

Committee Membership

Group and individual submissions can be made to this inquiry to express feelings and concerns and to request recommendations.

Voices of the Valley submission

This submission is made on behalf of Voices of the Valley, a community advocacy group based in the Latrobe Valley.

We would like to speak at the Select Committee hearing in Traralgon.

Voices of the Valley (VotV) was formed in 2014 during the Hazelwood Mine Fire. Having lived through the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009, the Hazelwood Mine Fire that burned in the Hazelwood coal mine and was only declared safe after 45 days, and other, smaller bushfires, the Latrobe Valley community is alert to the risk of fire, especially in working and worked out coal mines, as well as in timber plantations and the native bush which surround the Valley. Since the mine fire and the subsequent inquiries, VotV has been assiduous in scrutinising proposed projects that may potentially jeopardise the health and safety of the people who live in this area as well as proposals that promise jobs for the region without adequate planning, costing or sound business cases. We are very aware of the decline of coal-fired power generation; in the last three decades, the power industry has dwindled from being the major employer in the Latrobe Valley and will decline further as the remaining power stations close. With Yallourn W power station expected to close within the next three years and AGL Loy Yang due to close by 2035, it is clear that the energy sector is changing dramatically. 

In 2016, realising that there was no effective planning for the future of the region, VotV launched a transition plan based on a worker transition centre, education and training in renewable energy technology, community partnership with government, industry and educational institutions and distributed and dispatchable power feeding into the grid. As a community group of volunteers, we didn’t have the resources to implement the plan, but the ideas have been taken on by government, some industries, education, and other community groups.

Australia is adopting renewable energy, from community energy projects based on rooftop solar and local wind farms, solar arrays on dwellings, community assets and businesses, to large scale wind and solar projects in regional areas that previously relied on centrally generated power and one-way grid transmission. On a national scale, there is a shift towards distributed generation based on renewables, to the point that during the day, solar power supplies at least as much energy as the old coal fired power stations. The Latrobe Valley, the centre of Victoria’s coal-electricity,  is adopting renewable energy: householders and businesses have been installing rooftop solar panels; the Delburn wind farm has been approved to start construction; Engie, AGL and Energy Australia are building big batteries; a solar farm project has preliminary approval to be established adjacent to the former Hazelwood power station switchyards. Gippsland is also a major site for future off-shore wind farms. These and like projects need to be facilitated and encouraged in the interests of adjusting to climate change and maintaining adequate power supplies for Victoria and the eastern states power grid. 

VotV members are very concerned that talk of and the political campaign for nuclear energy will discourage investment in renewable energy generation, transmission and storage and leave us with uncertain power supply. Since the idea was dropped on us, members have been researching nuclear energy in the countries that have an established nuclear industry. What we have learned is that no country has solved the problem of long-term storage of nuclear waste. Almost no new nuclear power stations have been constructed in the time frame envisaged and within budget; on the contrary, nuclear power plants are expensive to build, even when there is an established industry to build on. Nuclear power plants are not risk free, and communities living near them must maintain a preparedness for nuclear accidents. While there is talk of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors), these are in the developmental phase; there are not any Modules actually available. With no nuclear industry as a base for development, and from what we have learned of overseas nuclear developments, as well as the time it takes for local projects to go from proposal to full scale development, we estimate it would take at least 30 years to develop nuclear power in Australia, plus whatever time it takes to pass enabling legislation. We believe nuclear power is neither suitable nor necessary for Australia and as a nation we would be better served by expanding the resources to develop renewable energy.

We expect the Select Committee will receive evidence from experts in nuclear energy and engineering, costing, construction, risk analysis and availability of technology. What follows is an outline of our concerns.

1. Deployment timeframes: Nuclear power generation must be considered in relation to: a) the decline of fossil fuel power generation, in particular coal -fired power generation;  b) the growth in renewable energy, starting with solar power and now likely to be expanded through wind power; and c) the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions now, not in 20-30 years’ time. The experience of countries which have established nuclear power industries suggests that building new nuclear power stations takes at least 10 years from approval to completion. In Australia, with no nuclear industry to build on, and with the additional requirements to repeal legislation which prohibits nuclear power and introduce enabling legislation to commence the process of establishing a nuclear power industry, the time may be doubled. Coal-fired power and nuclear power are both ‘base-load’ power, that is, both generate a fairly constant rate of power, whereas renewable sources provide ‘dispatchable’ power. In the past, when coal provided base load power, there were inducements for consumers to use power at night (for instance, ‘night rate’ for hot water heating) in order to encourage consumption. With widespread adoption of solar power, consumers with solar panels are being encouraged to change consumption patterns so that they are using power when their rooftop arrays are producing and solar energy is being fed into the grid. This can be expected to become even more widespread as consumers monitor their energy use. Coal based power cannot be readily adjusted to take account of high rates of renewable energy and probably neither could nuclear power. The timeframe must allow for: legislative change; workforce education and training; time for developing plans and a business case; time for meeting environmental, site, and health standards; time for design and construction. We note that a small project for the Latrobe Valley, a Used Lead Acid Battery recycling facility, was approved by the Victorian Minister for Planning in 2019 as ‘shovel ready’ on the basis of being a scaled replica of an existing facility in China. The plans are still being modified. Construction has not yet started, 5 years later.

2. Fuel supply, and transport of fuel. Australia mines, refines and sells uranium but most of the uranium to be used in power generation takes place overseas. This would involve considerable transportation, export and import and further transportation of enriched, more radioactive uranium to the ultimate use site. The risks in transporting radioactive material, through population centres, and the extra volume of heavy vehicles on roads which are even now being damaged by ever increasing traffic are of major concern. Transport would have ramifications for road use, road safety and maintenance. A worst-case scenario would be hi-jacking a load of enriched uranium that could then be used for nefarious purposes. While this might seem far-fetched, so would have been a coal mine fire lasting 45 days, before it happened. A more likely scenario is a road accident involving the transport of nuclear material which could impact many road users.

Mining of uranium ore has been declining for various reasons, including a fall in the market.  Uranium mining in Australia has occurred mostly on Aboriginal land. Traditional owners of land on which uranium mining is carried out have long objected to mining as harmful to country.  

We would request that you take the rights and responsibilities of First Nations people over their traditional lands as seriously as they do and look at the environmental and spiritual consequences of uranium mining. 

3. Uranium enrichment capability. Since this does not happen in Australia now, it must be factored into the timeframe for establishing a nuclear industry.

4. Waste management, transport and storage. These are crucial issues. Australia has investigated possible storage sites for uranium waste and so far, has not identified a permanent site. Short-term storage for nuclear medicine waste is just that, short term. Long term storage for nuclear waste is in the thousands of years, not decades. Safe transport of nuclear waste is of even greater concern than of nuclear fuel because the level of radioactivity is so much greater. As we live in an area which is dealing with the waste and rehabilitation needed from decades of coal mining and power generation, why would we create issues for future generations to deal with when we can do better? Possible sites for long term storage of waste are necessarily in sparsely populated areas, but the sites that have been considered are on Aboriginal lands and the people who live there are vehemently opposed to providing a dumping ground for nuclear waste, whether from Australia or from countries that have bought Australian uranium in the past and want to return the waste to Australia. Even if a waste storage site were established, the problem of transporting highly radioactive waste would remain. The risks of accidents to communities between nuclear plants and radioactive waste storage sites are too great.

5. Water use and impacts on other water uses: Water resources are highly contested now, for instance, as between agriculture, industrial use and environmental needs. Water for nuclear power generation would be needed for both cooling and storage, additional needs, not a replacement for a discontinued use. In the Latrobe Valley, there will be a continuing demand on water resources for mine rehabilitation even when the coal-fired power stations are closed, as well as for domestic needs, food production and maintenance of environmental water quality downstream to the Gippsland Lakes. There is simply no additional water available. 

6. Relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines: The owners of energy infrastructure, including transmission lines, fossil fuel power stations, and coal mines are investing in renewable energy infrastructure now. Jobs are being created in renewable energy technologies, installations and maintenance. Former power station workers are finding new opportunities in renewable industries. Operators of coal mines have rehabilitation responsibilities and liabilities that must be discharged before they sell or relinquish. Owners of transmission lines are investigating new routes for transmission lines to manage dispatchable power. If their plans and developments were to be short-circuited by a policy to develop nuclear generation, they may start looking for compensation for ‘stranded assets’. ‘Brownfield’ sites (coal mines and coal fired power stations?) would require site remediation, rehabilitation and substantial work to reduce fire risks from residual coal.

7. Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks:  Federal and State legislation prohibiting nuclear power generation.

We ask that the Select Committee makes a recommendation endorsing the existing State and Federal legislation prohibiting nuclear generation. 

We also ask that the Select Committee report includes a reminder that Australia signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970.

8. Risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concern:  Natural disasters include bushfire, flood, ground movements. Industrial disasters, such as fire (Hazelwood mine fire), as well as nuclear accidents, and political disasters such as terrorism. This week, as we have been preparing this submission, there have been earthquakes in two of the regions identified as possible sites for nuclear plants, that is Collie in Western Australia and the Hunter region in New South Wales. Any risk analysis must include a recognition of potentially catastrophic effects, even if the likelihood of disaster is low. For instance, a nuclear disaster in Latrobe Valley would isolate Gippsland to the east of us and Melbourne from one of the major food producing areas of the state. As a nation, we face several urgent issues that must be taken into account when considering a new industry. These include climate change, changing weather patterns, and climate refugees.

9. Potential share of total energy system mix:   Are  ‘baseload’ and ‘dispatchable’ power compatible? Daytime solar energy now is threatening the financial viability of coal power. Dutton and others supporting nuclear power claim it will last 60-80 years. However, that concept locks us into a very old technology which is what we need to avoid. Just as coal fired power, which was really great in its day, is now becoming redundant because a better technology has come along to replace it. (Sort of like the car replacing the horse.) Renewables use new proven technologies that are available today, creating renewable energy jobs now, not in the future, and, by its nature, renewable energy is very flexible and adaptable to future technological change when compared to large baseload. It is a technology that is growing and adapting by the week, quite similar to how the car replaced the horse over a couple of decades progressively. 

10.  Necessary land acquisition: None of the operators of coal fired power stations in Victoria have expressed an interest in replacing their plants with nuclear plants. All of the owners of the sites in Victoria have already started planning for their own renewable energy projects, on their sites after they stop producing energy from coal.  The idea of using an existing coal fired power plant has been discussed around the world, but it has never been done. That would be like putting a new engine in a 50-year-old station wagon, ignoring the fact that the rest of the " car " is still 50 years old and not fit for purpose, but also that it's an old station wagon that the market no longer wants.  Most auto manufacturers stopped making station wagons because no-one was buying them.  They were all buying SUVs instead. There are suggestions that nuclear power plants could be built on the site of existing coal fired power stations to take advantage of existing infrastructure. In the Latrobe Valley, power stations are sited next to Declared Mines which must be rehabilitated before the operators relinquish the site. It has been estimated that the Hazelwood site will take at least another 20 years to be fully safe, stable, and sustainable. Arguably, rehabilitation will require a similar time frame for the Yallourn and Loy Yang sites. If the land were compulsorily acquired, would the new owners become responsible for rehabilitation? Or would acquisition wait until rehabilitation was complete (30 years from closure?) What would be the cost and who would pay? Either way, it would be decades before the site became available for new developments, whereas the current operators, Engie, AGL and Energy Australia are already implementing plans for renewable energy. 

11. Costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations: Globally, it seems that governments fund new nuclear power stations, and there are no investors clamouring to build nuclear power stations. If nuclear power were to be government funded, that is taxpayer funded, at what cost? What would be lost from the national budget to fund it? Health? Education? Social security? Aged Care? All of which are currently underfunded. Amongst the costs of building, operation and maintaining nuclear power stations are the potential loss of investment in projected solar and wind farms and supporting infrastructure such as neighbourhood and big batteries.

12.The impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability: We expect the Committee will take evidence from CSIRO on the cost of developing nuclear energy in Australia and note that the Return on Investment would require either very high electricity charges to consumers or substantial subsidies to keep the cost to consumers lower than the costs associated with renewable energy.

13.  Any other relevant matters: 

The Coalition has suggested that the Federal Government would own and build nuclear power around Australia. Could they also afford the costs associated with the risks?

Would people in the fallout zone of a nuclear power plant see insurance prices increased or the potential of Insurance companies refusing to cover nuclear incidents? What are the risks of contamination of food supply or health impacts on surrounding populations? 

Would house prices fall as is seen in nuclear areas around the world?

There was bipartisan support for enabling legislation to develop offshore wind farms and associated infrastructure, passed in 2021 under the Morrison Coalition Government. It is concerning that less than three years later there seems to be a campaign to thwart the rapid development of offshore wind by discouraging investment in renewable energy.

The shift away from traditional fossil fuel-based power generation to distributed generation creates opportunities for communities and householders to be part of the transforming energy system. To add nuclear into the mix of energy generation using the old baseload model would remove the benefits that can be created. This distributed generation involves smaller-scale, decentralised electricity production, renewable energy sources for production and storage. The idea of baseload power has changed. 

This shift presents several opportunities for communities and individual households to become more actively involved in the energy system, such as:

• Self-generation: Households and communities can install their own renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar panels, to generate their own electricity. This empowers them to be more self-reliant and reduces their dependence on the traditional grid.
• Participation in local energy markets: Distributed generation allows for the creation of local energy markets, where households and communities can buy, sell, or trade the electricity they generate, fostering greater engagement and control over their energy supply.
• Energy efficiency and demand-side management: Distributed generation encourages households and communities to be more conscious of their energy consumption and to implement energy-efficient measures, further reducing their reliance on the traditional grid.
• Community energy projects: Neighbourhoods or communities can come together to develop and manage their own renewable energy projects, such as community-owned solar farms or wind turbines, enabling them to collectively participate in the energy system.
• As we draft this submission, we have just learned of the announcement of V2G, which is a significant development and provides households with additional opportunities while unlocking a significant amount of backup power.

Overall, this shift towards distributed generation creates opportunities for a more decentralised, participatory, and sustainable energy system, where communities and households can play a more active role in the generation, distribution, and management of their energy resources.

We ask the Select Committee makes a recommendation to continue developments in renewable energy with distributed generation. 

That the urgent need to act on Climate Change requires investment in and faster development of renewable energy resources; and

That developing nuclear generation would be detrimental to continuing investment in renewable energy.

We ask that you make a recommendation to prioritise renewable energy as an immediate solution to changing energy needs over a long term. 

We thank you for the opportunity to make this submission and to bring the concerns of our community to your attention.