Morwell Nuclear Information Night: A nuclear future for the Latrobe Valley?

Last week, a presentation was made in the Latrobe Valley, organized by We Planet Australia. 

On the panel were Andrea Leong from WPA, local councillor Graeme Middlemiss, and most importantly, Robert Parker and Robert Barr from the Nuclear for Climate Australia group. 

The presentation made by Robert Parker was a condensed version of the one he delivered to the IPA recently which is available online. All the charts and information he referred to are available on the NFCA webpage. Also on the NFCA site are 6 different combinations of a nuclear plus renewables grid solution.

The important point to note is that the basis of the NFCA argument Robert Parker offered was the economics of a mostly nuclear generation fleet with the rest as renewables and energy storage. The NFCA website has 6 combinations with " scenario # 6 " being the future grid powered by 70%+ nuclear and the rest from renewables. This option was the one that Robert Parker and Robert Barr promoted as they claim it is the cheapest option for Australia.

Significantly, he presented a rollout timeframe of 2 reactors by 2035-37 with the rest being rolled out over the 2040s and beyond. 

For reference, Ontario, Canada has about 60% nuclear today, (although only 15% of Canada’s power generation is nuclear). No doubt people have heard Ted O’Brien, Peter Dutton, David Littleproud and Barnaby Joyce refer to Ontario on several occasions. Peter Dutton was interviewed by the media recently. ln those interviews he made reference to Canada and their 60% nuclear grid. He also made references to his plan of building 2 nuclear reactors by 2035-37 with the rest via a gradual rollout through the 2040s. That is exactly what Robert Parker said in the presentation at Morwell last week.

Here's where the Ontario reference fits in. 

The Coalition NFCA connection is via Nationals MP David Gillespie. David Gillespie, Robert Parker, Robert Barr and David Collins all travelled to Canada to inspect the nuclear facilities in Ontario. They have a series of 4 videos on youtube under the title " Teaming with Canada for Australia's Nuclear Energy Future " parts 1 thru 4. 

Ted O’Brien talked extensively about visiting Canada during several interviews also. 

 The Dutton plan is clearly the # 6 Scenario plan on the NFCA Australia website. lt is virtually identical. ln Gillespie's presentation, he goes into depth about teaming up with Canada and the synergies that offers. 

Some key points.

1. If we were to follow the Dutton plan it would require the immediate cessation of renewable and energy storage construction in Australia as the current renewable capacity is greater than that in the scenario #6 model of 2050. 
2. That would also mean the cessation of the new transmission infrastructure construction as scenario #6 doesn't require it.
3. The cessation of the renewable plus energy storage rollout means that we would have to extend the life of the existing coal fired power stations well into the 2040s. Long beyond their current shutdown schedule. Given that electricity demand is expected to rise as we electrify everything over the next 25 years as part of our net zero by 2050 target, our coal/gas fired generation would have to increase in the interim thus causing our co2 emissions to increase considerably over that period.
4. Clearly the coal fired/gas fired power stations would also require considerable upgrades in order to be able to operate for the next 25 years. A cost that would no doubt be borne by the consumer. The future restriction on renewable energy rollout also means that electricity customers would lose the ability to reduce their bills by installing solar. 

Links

NEMWatch -What’s happening in the National Energy Market now - https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/reneweconomy/

NFCA scenarios for a nuclear future for Australia - https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/our-analysis-of-the-grid-2-2/

Nuclear power in Canada - https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power

Australian Energy Market Operator. There is a wealth of information about how the electricity market works, the energy mix now and planning for the future. - https://aemo.com.au/

https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information

24/09/2024

No nuclear for Gippsland

Voices of the Valley supports the transition to renewable energy for Latrobe Valley and Gippsland. The take-up of rooftop solar by business and domestic users is clearly evident and plans for solar and wind farms across the region are progressing well. We need these projects to proceed steadily to ensure job opportunities and energy security as the coal industry winds down. The LNP proposal for nuclear generators to replace coal-fired power stations can only be seen as a distraction and block to renewable energy and dispatchable power.

The Latrobe Valley is not a suitable site for a nuclear power station.

• Both Victorian and Federal governments have held enquiries into nuclear energy, and both have concluded that Australia should not build nuclear power stations. Victoria’s most recent inquiry was tabled in Parliament in 2020 and, at the Federal level, the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983 is still in force. More recently, Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act of 1998/2024 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00383/latest/text) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act of 1999 /2023 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00485/latest/text) also prohibit nuclear power in all states and territories of Australia. Nuclear power stations cannot be built in Australia.

• Even if there were changes to legislation to make nuclear power possible, it would take many years and an enormous investment to build a nuclear power station, which would make nuclear power prohibitively expensive. As there are no sites now for nuclear power plants, it would take a number of years to have a site declared (noting that it took 6 years from the initial proposal for Star of the South for the Gippsland Off Shore wind site to be approved.) Then it would probably take several years of planning, environmental checks, objections, modifications, etc before development could be approved, let alone start. 

• The CSIRO and AEMO calculated costs for various forms of energy generation and the 2023-24 report notes, "Using the standard formula for levelised costs plus the additional calculations specific to additional storage and transmission needs, wind and solar come in at an average of $112 per megawatt hour in 2023, decreasing to $82 per megawatt hour in 2030. In contrast, based on the available updated cost data, SMRs come in at an average $509 per megawatt hour in 2023, decreasing to $282 in 2030. This projection shows nuclear SMR capital costs are almost half from today, but still well above the projected costs for wind and solar. (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2023/December/Nuclear-explainer). The levelized costs do not include storage of nuclear waste or site remediation. 

• Current power station operators hold licences for years to come and the land they hold will not become available until their rehabilitation responsibilities are completed.

• Nuclear power stations require a great deal of water. There are already concerns about the competing demands for water between agriculture, maintaining environmental water quality downstream of the Latrobe Valley, mine rehabilitation, not to mention uncertainties related to climate change.

• Ground stability is an important requirement for nuclear power stations. Not only is there some surface instability related to long term disruption of the water table resulting from decades of mining, but there are fault lines that point to the possibility of earthquakes.

• The last few years have made clear the costs associated with coal mining and coal burning; environmental, human health, and rehabilitation costs. How much greater are the costs of nuclear power generation when there is no safe method of disposing of nuclear waste?

• Is there a social licence for nuclear power in the Latrobe Valley? Nuclear power stations elsewhere are considered safe for people to live 16 km away. All of the current power stations in the Valley are within 16km of most of the population. In case of a nuclear accident the danger zone is 80 km. That would affect most of Gippsland and the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. We have not been asked if this is something we see as the future of our area, but there is considerable evidence of acceptance that renewable energy is the way of the future and that we are no longer prepared to accept decisions being imposed on us.

No to Nuclear

Communities at proposed nuclear sites launch joint Campaign against Dutton’s “half baked Idea”

Community organisations from the seven regional communities where Peter Dutton proposes to house nuclear reactors today launch a regional community alliance and a joint campaign to say NO to nuclear. 

“Without asking our communities, Peter Dutton has arrogantly announced that we will house nuclear reactors in our regions,” said Wendy Farmer of Voices of the Valley from Latrobe Valley, Victoria. Peter Dutton announced the half baked idea without giving a plan, David Littleproud and Ted O'Brien both flagged two and a half years of local community consultation. Mr Littleproud said, “We would start the two and a half year consultation process with those communities to make sure they understood". Mr O’Brien added he did not expect the communities were likely to oppose, but they would not be given the opportunity to veto. He hasn’t consulted farmers or families, elders or economists – or even the owners of the sites he has announced. It just doesn’t make sense, especially when substantial investment opportunities for renewable energy already exist in our regions. “Our communities are thousands of kilometres apart but we are standing together because we won’t be bullied into housing nuclear reactors.” said Wendy Farmer.

Community groups representing thousands of members across the regions where Mr Dutton proposes nuclear reactors are working together since the announcement. Today they’re launching a joint petition, addressed to Peter Dutton and all members of the Coalition to say NO to nuclear reactors in their regions and across Australia. In addition, the alliance is asking Australians around the country to support them
and sign the petition, saying No to nuclear reactors in the regions and across Australia. In Peter Dutton’s own words “If you don’t know, say NO.”

The petition is hosted at www.nonukes.com.au

“We have a cost of living crisis right now,” said Robyn Wood, spokesperson for Don’t Nuke Port Augusta. “We need affordable clean energy quickly through a rollout of renewable energy, not an expensive half-baked nuclear fantasy. Our future is in renewable energy.”

“Mr Dutton can’t tell us how much it would cost, what it would mean for our power bills, how and where nuclear waste could be safely stored for 10,000 years,” said Marianne Robinson from the Latrobe Valley. “Japan, Brazil, USA, Russia and the UK have all had significant nuclear safety disasters and our
communities don’t want to be next.”

“Our communities are not the fools Mr Dutton seems to think we are,” said Julie Favell, from Lithgow Environment Group.