Why Risk Nuclear? - Lighter Footprints

Why risk nuclear when we can power Australia with clean safe abundant power from the sun and wind

Let’s make the right technology choices

Nuclear is too slow, too expensive and too inflexible.

We should not be sinking huge amounts of public funds into a technology that is so risky.

Nuclear is many times the cost of renewables and storage according to CSIRO
Climate Council: “nuclear represents paying too much for too little, to come online too late”.

Renewables already power 40% of Australia’s main grid.

And that’s only going to up as the costs of solar and wind power continue to fall.

Points to consider

Estimated cost of power sources CSIRO GenCost ABC Pexels

Nuclear is very expensive

With nuclear power we would pay far more, for less, than with clean energy
CSIRO: “Nuclear is not economically competitive with solar PV and wind and the total development time in Australia for large or small-scale nuclear is at least 15 years.”

AEMO’s definitive GenCost 2023/24 report concludes that nuclear is significantly more expensive to build and run than least cost renewables and storage (GenCost 23/24 Fig 0-3, p. xii).
The Smart Energy Council has concluded that building seven nuclear reactors could cost “between $116-$600 billion of taxpayers’ dollars, whilst only providing 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix in 2050″
Tristan Edis “While learning by doing cost reductions have been proven to unfold in renewable energy and batteries, in nuclear power the opposite has occurred. Instead costs for nuclear have increased over time”

CSIRO confirms nuclear power is the most expensive option

CSIRO has rebutted the LNP’s critique of its GenCost findings, stating that it is unrealistic to expect a 60-100 year life without substantial rebuilding costs, or that reactors would run at over 90% capacity factor, when they had used a more reasonable 80%.
ABC: Responding to the LNP’s request to consider their longer lives, CSIRO confirmed that nuclear power has little advantage compared to clean energy, due to rebuilding costs partway through, as well as much higher initial costs and running costs.

Nuclear could raise household energy bills by $665/yr

Guardian: The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has calculated that household energy bills would rise by an average $665/yr based on the cost of six overseas nuclear plants, while still using the LNP’s optimistic 60 year lifespan and a “very high” 93% utilisation rate. IEEFA’s findings are based on AEMO’s Gen Cost studies. ““The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia”

Hinkley C cost has tripled and it has been plaugued by legal challenges and safety concerns

Nuclear is far too slow

Coal power is on it’s way out, so we need a replacement fast.
Nuclear takes too long to permit and build, to take over from coal. Firmed solar and wind power can do the job at a much lower cost.

Nuclear risks our energy security. We need renewables backed by storage now so its online as coal is being phased out.
Nuclear risks our kids’ future by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution.
Tristan Edis, Renew Economy: CSIRO’s GenCost is too conservative, not taking into account the much higher costs and delays in first and early projects.
Climate Council Nuclear Submission pp 8-11: “Nuclear reactors would take too long to build in Australia and therefore cannot meaningfully contribute to our energy needs in the timeframe required.” Factors include overturning regulatory bans, setting up a new regulatory framework, workforce training, construction delays and cost overruns.

Cost blow outs, delays and more

Renew Economy: Prof Bent Flyvberg, Oxford University database finds nuclear projects have very high rates of delay and cost blow outs: the “database indicates nuclear projects are characterised by extremely high risk of construction cost blow-outs, with budgets typically blowing out by 120%.”

Graham Readfearn and Adam Morton say costs could be double CSIRO estimates due to first of a kind premium and doubt that expenses would come down over time. Only “five large-scale nuclear projects have reached construction stage in North America and western Europe this century. Four have taken more than twice as long to be built as initially forecast and are expected to cost between double and six times initial estimates. The fifth, the Virgil C Summer plant in South Carolina, was cancelled after A$13bn had been spent.”

AFR: Hinkley C in the UK will cost nearly three times its budget: “It was initially due to be operational in 2017 and to cost about $35 billion, but it is now not expected to open before 2031 and will cost about $90 billion.”

Nuclear reactors use up a lot of water Lake Liddell Wikimedia Commons

Nuclear uses too much water

Water is essential to run a nuclear reactor – running low risks nuclear meltdown
ABC: “Without enough water supply, known as a heat sink, a reactor must be shut down to prevent overheating, which in extreme cases can cause a nuclear meltdown.”

Queensland analysis shows “the Federal Coalition’s nuclear power policy is a threat to Queensland’s water security”.
The cheaper once through method use more water than a closed loop system, and the hot runoff risks irreversibly disrupting ecosystems

More about water use

Climate Council: “a typical 1600 MW nuclear plant uses about 2,000 litres of water per second, about 173 million litres per day. It would take the average Aussie household 986 years to use that much water.”
S&P Global “Climate change-exacerbated water shortage issues pose a near-term and longer-term performance risk to power plants, such as hydropower and nuclear, around the world”

Nuclear power is too inflexible

Nuclear power can’t ramp up and down
Nuclear power does not mix well with renewables as it is inherently inflexible, would prolong coal and gas usage, and would need to displace renewables to be viable.

Why nuclear? Renew Economy on Frontier’s report: LNP’s plan revolves around inflexible baseload power, scrapping offshore wind, with very small increases in solar/onshore wind capacity to 2050, and large scale renewables capped at 49% (we are at 40% now). Your solar panels are likely to be turned off daily to accomodate nuclear.

Nuclear would delay our shift to clean energy

Nuclear is an expensive distraction
Australia has the world’s best natural resources in wind and sun. Renewable energy backed up with storage is the least expensive form of new energy.

Guardian: LNP/Frontier Economics modelling shows much higher emissions “with nuclear than without until sometime between 2046 and 2049” “the modelling shows more coal stays in the grid for longer, releasing more CO2.”

The nuclear proposal threatens investor confidence in renewables and would prolong the shift away from coal and gas.
Nuclear reactors produce inflexible “baseload” energy which can’t work within a modern, flexible grid that balances a variety of energy sources.
Nuclear power is not appropriate for Australia

Frontier graph of emissions reduction comparing nuclear to coal

Click on the Frontier Economics graph above to enlarge for more detail.

Large scale solar beats fossil energy prices hands down

Should taxpayer have to carry the cost of nuclear?

Building nuclear power would use up a large amount of public money
Nuclear is too expensive and slow to develop compared to renewables

Nuclear will require government funding because it is not commercially attractive

Why does LNP Frontier Economic modelling say nuclear is cheaper than renewables?

Economist Nicki Hutley: the Frontier Economics report “is written in an opaque way that makes direct comparisons difficult. Essentially, the report admits that the capital cost of nuclear is $10,000/kW; solar and wind are $1,800 and $2,500 respectively.”

Nuclear doesn't stack up

Commercial investors aren’t interested in nuclear because it doesn’t stack up financially
The Smart Energy Council finds “building seven nuclear – reactors could cost “between $116-$600 billion of taxpayers’ dollars, whilst only providing 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix in 2050″
Australia has no existing nuclear industry or expertise which would take time to develop
Nuclear faces significant regulatory and statutory barriers which would take time to remove

Nuclear cost blow-outs could be hidden from public scrutiny

Former Senator and transparency activist points to a recent Administrative Review Tribunal decision which refused public scrutiny on Snowy 2.0 massive cost blow outs ($2bn to $12bn), saying that Peter Dutton could use a similar mechanism to hide escalating nuclear costs from public scrutiny, via legislating a company, for example with two Ministers as shareholders, which “does not represent the Crown”, and therefore can be subject to a mutual confidentiality agreement, where only the Ministerial shareholders have access to costing and progress information.

Cleaning up politics

Fossil fuel interests have undue influence over our elected representatives. Political donations and unchecked and undisclosed lobbying activities mean vested interests dominate in Canberra.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the 2023/2024 year totalled 14.5 billion ($27,581 for every minute of every day)
Since 2001 every departing resources Minister has gone to work in the fossil fuel sector
The Australian Medical Association called for “an end to donations from the fossil fuel industry to political parties and for fossil fuel subsidies to be transitioned to renewable energy.”

Nuclear produces dangerous waste

Nuclear reactors produce waste that is dangerous right now
Nuclear waste has to be securely stored for tens of thousands of years, and could become national security threat.

Globally, the nuclear industry has not solved its waste problem
A 2022 Senate reported stated “pursuing a civil nuclear industry creates potential and unnecessary national security risks.” (Section 4.14)

Nuclear waste is toxic

Gas appliances exacerbate childhood asthma and are associated with other health impacts.

University of Queensland research found that gas cooking is causally implicated in 12% of childhood asthma – this was further publicised through a Climate Council report. Asthma Australia is informing parents about the risks of gas cooking.

An epidemiological meta-analysis found that “children living in a home with gas cooking have a 42% increased risk of having current asthma, a 24% increased risk of lifetime asthma”.

The Climate Council reporting on an environmental health study on gas stoves states “more than half of occupants with were routinely exposed to harmful levels of NO2 and formaldehyde” if used with poor ventilation.

Reduce asthma risk immediately for under $100!

Always use ventilation when cooking with gas
Try out induction cooking with a portable unit – its fast, efficient and easy to clean

Living near a nuclear reactor elevates cancer risk, especially for kids under 5

Current Env Health Reports 2024 meta study found increased cancer risk: “higher risks for mesothelioma for workers and all-cancer, thyroid cancer, and leukemia for residents exposed to low-dose radiation from nuclear power plants”

Melbourne Uni lecturer Dr Margaret Beavis offers an accessible summary of current research, including more than doubling of leukaemia rates for under fives living within 5km, significant increases for cancer within 20-30km for all ages. Workers also have an increased death rate from cancer.

Elevated cancer rates, especially for kids under five who had the highest risk, were found in a 2024 meta study of populations exposed to low dose radiation (ie under approved levels). “Our findings demonstrated higher risks for mesothelioma for workers and all-cancer, thyroid cancer, and leuke- mia for residents exposed to low-dose radiation from nuclear power plants.”

Living near a nuclear reactor is increases cancer risk for young children: at 5km, 61% increases in all cancer, 119% luekemia increase in young kids, at 16km 23% increase leukemia of primary school age kids.

Coal’s on the way out, so we need more renewable energy – fast!

Why risk nuclear reactors in our backyard?

The nuclear power industry comes with demonstrated risks
Nuclear reactors can fail, with profound consequences “for generations to come“.

Decommissioning likely to cost the taxpayer $80 billion

The Age: “Decommissioning any plants built under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan could cost more than $80 billion, and taxpayers would have to foot the bill”.

“If the Coalition’s plan to build 14 nuclear reactors by the mid-2040s is realised, the decommissioning bill would be roughly $82 billion to $125 billion in today’s dollars.”

Nuclear plants use a huge amount of water and delay a move to clean energy

Going nuclear will increase climate pollution

A nuclear power plan is really a gas plan
The ABC says that “the Coalition says it will expand the use of gas as it prepares for nuclear power in the late 2030s and curb the rollout of wind and solar” with gas use to go up five times.

Energy expert Dr Dylan McConnell, UNSW, working from the Frontier Economics modelling, finds that going nuclear would add an extra 1bn tons of carbon pollution by 2050 compared to expanding clean energy backed up by storage.

LNP Nuclear plan will raise emissions - analysis by Dr Dylan McConnell

Click on the graph above to enlarge for more detail.

Australia has an abundance of sun and wind

We can power Australia with clean, affordable renewables
Clean energy is the least cost, fastest way to create energy.

Moving past coal and gas

A new report from IEEFA says that reducing gas demand by going electric would bridge gas shortages.
Approvals for fracking (banned in Victoria) threaten water security and cultural sites
Fossil fuel subsidies have risen to $14.5 billion/year, and should be eliminated.

Risking nuclear is not worth it for Australia

Two visions for our electric grid

AEMO’s widely consulted Integrated System Plan 2024 lays out a clear plan to transition to clean energy including building transmission assets and long term storage which would be mostly funded by utilities and private investors.

The LNP nuclear plan offers a much smaller amount of very expensive, tax payer funded generation capacity while capping renewables generation at 54% and threatening to rip up renewables contracts.

The Smart Energy Council states that LNP nuclear plan would deliver less than 5% of our energy needs at 2050 at a prices that could escalate to $600 billion.

LNP nuclear costings based on rubbery accounting and a smaller grid

Frontier Economics have taken fifty year costings and only applied the first twenty five years to LNP’s final figure.

The modelling assumes that the legal barriers will be immediately overcome.
There is no accounting for delays or blow-outs which are common in western democracies.
There is no accounting for the cost of nuclear waste storage or disposal.
There is no accounting for the cost of remediating the sites.
Nuclear capacity is placed within a much smaller grid that would not be able to accomodate widespread household electrification or a change to EVs.

Frontier economics nuclear alternative modelling