The Australian Conservation Foundation criticised the proposal of Liberal Party and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to build nuclear power stations across seven sites in the country once elected in government.
Mr. Dutton also proposed that the federal government will own and pay for the proposed plants to ensure energy security in the country amid the expanded renewable energy push of the Albanese government.
The group said that Mr. Dutton’s proposal is unclear regarding the kind of technology that will be used in the construction of the plants, its cost to taxpayers, proposed timings, and concerns regarding radioactive waste that will be produced from the said plants.
“Mr. Dutton wants Australians to believe there will be nuclear reactors operating in a decade should he win the next election,” said Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney.
“It’s clear the Opposition leader hasn’t given up on his dream of small modular reactors. Mr. Dutton was vague about whether he is promoting big reactors or small reactors, which are not in commercial deployment anywhere in the world.”
The Liberal-National Coalition said that Australia needs to have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner, and consistent 24/7 energy.
To achieve this, the Coalition proposed to build zero-emissions nuclear energy which can be plugged to existing grids. The party said integrating nuclear energy can help gradually phase out coal power plants faster and complement the renewable energy mix proposal to attain net-zero in 2050.
Furthermore, the Coalition claimed that the zero-emissions nuclear energy proposal will ensure a cleaner and consistent energy source for 80 years, strengthening the country’s energy security.
“If you are serious about meeting our net zero by 2050 emissions commitments, then you must include zero-emission nuclear as part of your energy mix,” the Coalition said.
“Zero-emission nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon emissions.”
Despite these claims, the Australian Conservation Foundation said that going nuclear could delay the transition away from coal and gas.
Moreover, the proposal could also increase household electricity bills and affect vulnerable communities further, the Foundation said.
It also noted there is a lack of bipartisan support for nuclear, adding that there are multiple political, legal, and community obstacles in each jurisdiction where the proposed nuclear plants will be.
“Extensive modelling, including from CSIRO, shows nuclear is far-and-away the most expensive energy option. Taxpayers and households would bear the cost. Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action. Australia is blessed with plentiful clean energy resources. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive,” Mr. Sweeney said.
