WAGE PEACE SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY
Summary
WHO WE ARE p.1
A. DEPLOYMENT TIME FRAMES p.1-2 (original document)
Introducing nuclear power would be too slow to help decarbonise.
B. FUEL SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT OF FUEL p.2
The nuclear industry has a poor safety record for transport of nuclear materials
C. URANIUM ENRICHMENT CAPABILITY p.2-3
Australia has no uranium enrichment capacity.
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND STORAGE p.3
This remains unsolved
E. WATER USE AND IMPACTS ON OTHER WATER USE p.3
Evaporatively cooled nuclear energy plants use 25% more water than evaporatively cooled large coal -fired power plants
F. RELEVANT ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, INCLUDING BROWNFIELD SITES AND TRANSMISSION LINES p.4
There is no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, nor for uranium enrichment nor for fuel fabrication.
G. FEDERAL, STATE, TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS p. Nuclear power is illegal in Australia. p.4
H. RISK MANAGEMENT FOR NATURAL DISASTERS OR ANY OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS p.5-7 Nuclear energy has a very poor safety record and is unsafe due to the dangers of accidents during construction and transport of fuel, operation and decommissioning.
J. NECESSARY LAND ACQUISITION p.7
This could be problematic legally.
K. COSTS OF DEPLOYING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS L. THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ON ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY p.7
Nuclear power would be uneconomic in Australia and far more expensive than continuing to build an energy system based on renewables.
M. ANY OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS p.7-8
RECOMMENDATIONS p. 8
That the committee rejects the option of nuclear power for Australia as it is would contribute to the proliferation of nuclear energy and also nuclear weapons. We also ask the committee to recommend that the AUKUS deal is revisited and annulled.
REFERENCES p.8-9
WHO WE ARE – WAGE PEACE
Wage Peace runs strong campaigns to disturb war and militarism in so-called Australia and organises and mobilises to end war culture.
We oppose nuclear energy proliferation, as it is closely linked to nuclear weapons proliferation – and also for all the reasons listed below.
A. DEPLOYMENT TIME FRAMES
Australian Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has pointed out that : “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.” (1)
Also, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte, a former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet comments that introducing nuclear power to Australia would be expensive and difficult and that it would be naive to think a nuclear plant could be built in less than two decades.(2)
While there have been claims that small modular reactors (SMR) would be a great solution for climate change, Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin notes that even if SMR proposals “work as planned (a big if), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia.” (3)
So nuclear energy is considered by these experts to be too slow to help us carbonise. –
B. FUEL SUPPLY, AND TRANSPORT OF FUEL
It is not true that Australia has an advantage , having large reserves of uranium. In the 2020 report referred to above, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte noted that it is:
“important to dispel a significant myth propagated through the [NSW nuclear power] inquiry that having large local uranium reserves is a driver for low-cost nuclear power. Most costs associated with the manufacture of fuel has little to do with the cost of uranium. It has much to do with enriching the fuel, manufacture of fuel rods … reprocessing of the spent fuel and storage of waste.”(4)
Australia has significant uranium reserves but no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, no capacity for uranium enrichment, and no capacity for fuel fabrication.
Transport
Nuclear transport incidents and accidents are commonplace in countries with a significant nuclear industry. A British study (5) identified 806 radioactive transport incidents in the UK from 1958−2004 including incidents involving:
• medical and industrial isotopes (376),
• residues including discharged irradiated nuclear fuel flasks (111),
• irradiated fuel (101),
• radiography sources (78),
• radioactive wastes (63),
• uranium ore concentrate (33) and
• other(44).
There are no comparable studies of transport accidents and incidents involving radioactive materials in Australia. However numerous accidents and incidents have been reported over the years. ANSTO has acknowledged that there are 1−2 accidents or incidents every year involving the transportation of radioactive materials to and from the Lucas Heights research reactor site.
C. URANIUM ENRICHMENT CAPABILITY
Uranium enrichment is currently illegal in Australia (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998; Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).
In the 2020 report referred to above, NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte noted: “Enrichment is very unlikely to ever be undertaken in Australia due to cost, skills and non-proliferation agreements. Consequently, we will still need to send our mined uranium overseas to be enriched and probably converted into fuel rods, which we will then need to ‒ import.”(6)
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORT AND STORAGE
Australia has no national facilities for nuclear waste disposal, and no country in the world has an operating repository for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
There is one operating deep underground repository for long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste − the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the US state of New Mexico. However, the WIPP repository was shut for three years following a chemical explosion in an underground radioactive waste barrel in 2014, a result of inept management and inadequate regulation. (7)
Efforts to establish national radioactive waste facilities (repositories and stores) in Australia for low- and intermediate-level waste have repeatedly failed since the 1990s, resisted by many First Nations people. (8)
The amount of waste that would be generated has been underestimated by Opposition leader Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. He claimed that: “If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year.” (9)
In fact, according to nuclear expert Dr Jim Green, over 450 million empty Coke cans per year would be required to accommodate waste generated across the nuclear fuel cycle for the operation of one 450- megawatt reactor. Excluding front-end waste (at uranium mines and enrichment plants), 367,000 empty Coke cans per year would be required;and just the spent nuclear fuel alone would require about 11,700 empty Coke cans per year. (10)
Transportation of radioactive materials (including nuclear waste) also poses security risks.
E. WATER USE AND IMPACTS ON OTHER WATER USES
A World Economic Forum paper states that water consumption for nuclear power is 2,870 to 3,270 litres per megawatt-hour (l/MWh), far thirstier than coal (1,220 to 2,270 l/MWh) and gas (700 to 1,200 l/MWh).(11)
According to a report prepared by Dr Ian Rose for the Queensland Government (15), evaporatively-cooled large coal-fired power plants use around 1,850 to 2,000 l/MWh whereas evaporatively-cooled nuclear power plants use around 25% more water, or around 2,300 l/MWh. Water consumption per megawatt-hour for solar PV and wind power is near-zero.(12)(13)
On the basis of worldwide experience, it appears that the enormous water requirements for nuclear reactors severely limits non-coastal siting.
F. RELEVANT ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPABILITY, INCLUDING BROWNFIELD SITES AND TRANSMISSION LINES
Australia has no capacity for uranium conversion or deconversion, no capacity for uranium enrichment, and no capacity for fuel fabrication.
The introduction of nuclear power to Australia would require the education and training of thousands of nuclear scientists, engineers etc., presumably at taxpayers’ expense.
Claims that converting coal power plants to nuclear plants will be straightforward and advantageous rest on shaky foundations. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could potentially reduce nuclear costs by using some existing infrastructure at coal plants, but nuclear power would still be far more expensive than firmed renewables (renewable systems with storage capacity). (15) No coal power plants have been repurposed as nuclear plants in the US or the UK, so purported synergies and cost savings are speculative.
Most or all of the owners of the sites targeted by the federal Coalition for nuclear reactors have no interest in supporting the development of nuclear power or in selling their sites. On the contrary, they are pursuing renewable energy projects and energy storage projects.
G. FEDERAL, STATE, TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS
Nuclear power was made illegal in Australia under two pieces of legislation introduced under the Howard Coalition government:
• the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and
• the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Any government seeking to pursue nuclear power would need Senate support not only to repeal existing bans but also to pass other legislation to facilitate the development of nuclear power.
Queensland, NSW and Victoria have legislation banning nuclear power. The federal government might have legal powers to override state/territory laws banning nuclear power, although costly and protracted legal challenges could be anticipated.
A federal government attempting to introduce nuclear power would also require the political cooperation of relevant state/territory governments because of the primary role of state/territory governments in managing energy systems, yet nuclear power is opposed by state governments in all five states targeted for nuclear reactors by the Coalition (including the incoming Queensland LNP government) (16). With the possible exception of SA, where the Liberal opposition supports consideration of nuclear power, there is bipartisan opposition to nuclear power in the five states.
The Dutton Coalition has made it clear that a Coalition government would be prepared to override and ignore local community opposition(17) – a risk to our democratic processes and social cohesion.
H RISK MANAGEMENT FOR NATURAL DISASTERS OR ANY OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS
Death and Illness due to Nuclear Disasters and Long Term Exposure to Low Level Nuclear radiation.
Controversy about Deaths Due to Nuclear Disasters.
Claims have been made about the safety of nuclear power using extremely low estimates of the final death tolls of the two worst nuclear power disasters, i.e. Chernobyl 433, and 2,314 from Fukushima (18) and ignoring deaths due to evacuation and trauma and also short and long term morbidity. This seems comparable to assessing the safety of a playground only looking at the number of deaths it has caused and ignoring any injuries!
The Chernobyl Disaster
In 2006, Tom Parfitt, in an article in the medical journal, the Lancet wrote ‘Some estimates of the number of deaths so far in the former Soviet countries range as high as 50 000, reflecting deep splits in opinion over the appropriate way to evaluate the long-term effects of the tragedy’. (19)
He reported in this article that ‘Specialists in the former Soviet Union suggest the international scientific community is ignoring local research which indicates a high rate of illnesses not usually connected to radiation—eg, cardiovascular diseases—among people who received low doses. They say this means the death rate from Chernobyl is much higher than was originally predicted.’
A later report published in 2009 by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences indicates that there could have been as many as 830,000 people in the Chernobyl clean-up teams . They estimated that between 112,000 and 125,000 of these – around 15% – had died by 2005. (20)
This report found ‘a marked increase in general morbidity in [contaminated areas] Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.
‘Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.’
It is likely that, contributing to the wide range of estimates of mortality are:
• different dose response models used by different researchers
• disagreement among experts about which diseases can be caused by radiation. • lack of transparency from the governments and officials.
• the chaos seen during and after disasters of this magnitude.
• political upheaval and now war in Ukraine.
No one disputes that the Chernobyl nuclear accident was both a humanitarian and economic disaster, with adverse effects being seen as far afield as Northern Europe – such as effects on the sale of sheep in Wales, as outlined in my introduction.
Fukushima
Japan is still in the early stages of recovering from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. The human impacts have been profound, particularly for the more than 190,000 evacuees (21) displaced by the nuclear disaster. Direct economics costs alone amount to many hundreds of billion dollars.(22) Chernobyl was a trillion-dollar accident.(23)
Sadly, the risk of another nuclear energy plant accident being catastrophic remains. Indeed this was confirmed by Dr Ziggy Switkwoski, the former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, when he gave evidence to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy on 29/08/2019 on Prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia . ‘After Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2001, the possibility of catastrophic failing within a nuclear system is non negligible.'(24)
Diseases linked with radiation
Some nuclear experts only look at cancer mortality when assessing radiation induced disease while there is some research linking low dose radiation with circulatory, age related and neurodegenerative diseases. (25)
Effects on Fertility
Research done in Israel concluded that ‘The overall fertility of Chernobyl-exposed women seems to be reduced as reflected by the lower number of children and their greater need for fertility treatments. Our findings raise concerns regarding the long-term implications of the Chernobyl disaster.'(26)
Long Term Effects of Nuclear Radiation
There is also some concern that the effects of low dose radiation have been underestimated. In a recent research paper, Dr Chris Busby found ‘a significant cancer risk associated with serving on a nuclear powered ship'(27).
Nuclear safety risk & insurance
It is noteworthy that insurance policies from some of Australia’s major insurers, including AAMI, CGU, Allianz, QBE and NRMA contain specific text excluding coverage for nuclear disasters. None of these will insure homes, cars or possessions against a nuclear accident or release. (28)
The conflict in Ukraine reminds us of the security issues that Australians would need to consider if nuclear power were to be introduced here. The Russian military’s seizure of the operating Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant — at a time when some of the plant’s six reactors were operating — was the most dangerous incident so far. Off-site power to the Zaporizhzhia plant has been cut eight times since Russia seized control of the plant in 2022, increasing the risk of a major accident.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi warned in April 2024 that attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant raise “the very real threat of a serious nuclear accident, which could have significant health and environmental consequences”.(29)
No other energy system is as easily weaponised as nuclear power and reactors have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets.
J. NECESSARY LAND ACQUISITION
The Coalition states that it has legal advice that it can use compulsory acquisition powers to seize land for its proposed nuclear reactors.
The Howard Coalition government illegally seized control of farming land in South Australia for a national nuclear waste dump in 2003. That land seizure was annulled following a Federal Court challenge.
K. COSTS OF DEPLOYING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
L. THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ON ELECTRICITY AFFORDABILITY
Nuclear power would be uneconomic in Australia and far more expensive than continuing to build an energy system based on renewables. Nuclear power would result in increased taxes and increased power bills. Taxpayer subsidies worth tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, would be required.
CSIRO’s May 2024 GenCost report clearly demonstrates the cost advantage of firmed renewables:(30)
* Large-scale nuclear: $155-252 / MWh
* Small modular reactors: $387-641 / MWh
* 90% wind and solar PV supply to the National Electricity Market including storage and transmission costs: $100-143 / MWh
A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that nuclear power would increase power bills for a four-person household by $972 per year, and that the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors would be 1.5 to 3.8 times higher than the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.(31)
M. ANY OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
Weapons Proliferation
The contribution of civil nuclear power programs to nuclear weapons proliferation has been documented by nuclear expert Dr Jim Green. Some countries openly acknowledge this with French president Emmanuel Macron summarising: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.(32)
First Nations Communities
Over the past 25 years successive governments have unsuccessfully tried to establish a national radioactive waste repository and store against the wishes of Traditional Owners at multiple sites, particularly in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
In 2023, Dr. Marcos Orellana, the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, visited Australia. His end of mission report noted that these struggles over proposed radioactive waste facilities have left “a legacy of division and acrimony in the communities” and that “alignment of regulations with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical step in the path towards healing open wounds of past environmental injustices”. (33)
The UN Declaration states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”.(34)
RECOMMENDATIONS
We therefore ask the committee to make the recommendations that:
1. . Australia rejects the option of nuclear power. Adopting nuclear power generation would bring us closer to a nuclear war, nuclear energy being linked to nuclear weapons proliferation.
Nuclear energy generation would also be a threat to our democracy due to the lack of community license, the culture of secrecy and the high level security required. The necessary siting of nuclear waste dumps would further fracture government relationships with and also relationships within First Nations peoples.
Nuclear energy generation and the resultant radioactive waste is also far too dangerous as can be seen by its sad history of the devastation of so many Eastern European and Japanese people’s lives. 2. Uranium mining is made illegal.
3. Australia withdraws from the AUKUS agreement due to the intractable issue of the waste produced, the loss of sovereignity and the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation both by Australia and other countries.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/heres-why-there-is-no-nuclear option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero
2. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959
3. https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-a-mature-debate-about-nuclear-power-by-the-time weve-had-one-new-plants-will-be-too-late-to-replace-coal-224513
4. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959
5. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ebb6fed915d74e33f2126/HpaRpd014.pdf 6. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/newsstory/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959
7. https://theecologist.org/2014/nov/27/new-mexico-nuclear-waste-accident-horrific-comedy errors-exposes-deeper-problems
8. https://www.apln.network/projects/voices-from-pacific-island-countries/the-politics-of-nuclear waste-disposal-lessons-from-australia
9. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-s-claim-nuclear-waste-would-be-size-of-coke can-hard-to-swallow-20240621-p5jnmy.html
10. https://jimkgreen1.substack.com/p/drink-up-peter-dutton-needs-one-billion 11. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/foe/legacy_url/1868/Water-energy-2009CERA.pdf 12. https://web.archive.org/web/20070908215425/http://thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/office/Nuclea rPowerStation261006.doc
13. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802/meta
14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305994
15. https://www.acf.org.au/power-games-assessing-coal-to-nuclear-proposals-in-australia 16. https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-in-a-panic-about-response-to-confused-and-unpopular nuclear-power-plan/
17. https://johnmenadue.com/duttons-nuclear-thuggery/
18. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima 19. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext 20. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04822.x 21. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-residents-return-despite-radiation/ 22. https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/accident-cleanup-costs-rising-to-35-80-trillion-yen-in-40-years 23. https://globalhealth.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_chernobyl_costs_report.pdf 24. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committee s%2Fcommrep%2F3abfb90c-9215-4b65-a5d2-32d112e8cd46%2F0001;query=I
25. 1. Sharma NK, Sharma R, Mathur D, Sharad S, Minhas G, Bhatia K, Anand A, Ghosh SP. Role of Ionizing Radiation in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 May 14;10:134. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00134. PMID: 29867445; PMCID: PMC5963202. 2. Yang EH, Marmagkiolis K, Balanescu DV, Hakeem A, Donisan T, Finch W, Virmani R, Herrman J, Cilingiroglu M, Grines CL, Toutouzas K, Iliescu C. Radiation-Induced Vascular Disease-A State-of-the-Art Review. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Mar 30;8:652761. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.652761. PMID: 33860001; PMCID: PMC8042773.
26. Cwikel J, Sergienko R, Gutvirtz G, Abramovitz R, Slusky D, Quastel M, Sheiner E. Reproductive Effects of Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Immigrant Women Exposed to the Chernobyl Accident. J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 8;9(6):1786. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061786. PMID: 32521764; PMCID: PMC7356322
27. Busby, C. (2020). High Cancer Risk in US Naval Personnel Serving in Nuclear Powered Ships. Cancer Investigation, 38(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2020.1731526 28. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/nuclear-power-uninsurable-and-uneconomic-in-australia/ 29. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-221-iaea-director-general-statement-on situation-in-ukraine
30. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
31. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/CivMil-CaseStudies2010.pdf 32. https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2020/12/08/deplacement-du-president-emmanuel macron-sur-le-site-industriel-de-framatome 33. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/eom_-_08_sep_2023_-_final_.pdf 34. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf