Huge Water Needs Makes Nuclear Unsuitable for Australia: Environmental Group

Journalists stand in front of a nuclear spent fuel pool in La Hague, northwestern France, on Aug. 29, 2024. Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images

An environmental group has said nuclear power is unsuitable for Australia due to its significant water demand.

Jane Sultana, the secretary of the Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group, raised concerns about nuclear power plants’ water consumption and its impact on the environment at a recent inquiry hearing on nuclear power generation.

Citing data from some experts who have talked to her group, Sultana said nuclear power stations used around 20-25 percent more water than coal-fired plants.

“Increasing demand for limited local water supplies means we just cannot afford to support nuclear development in the La Trobe Valley or anywhere in Australia,” she told the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy.

The Latrobe Valley, which currently houses three coal-fired power plants, has been earmarked as a potential site for setting up a nuclear power station under the Opposition’s nuclear strategy.

The Opposition has planned to repurpose existing transmission infrastructures and the previous labour force of retired coal-fired plants in the area for nuclear development, a practice that is considered feasible by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Latrobe Valley’s Water Insufficient: Environmental Group

However, Sultana said the Latrobe Valley’s water resources could not meet the demand of a nuclear power plant.

She explained that the coal mine rehabilitation project in the region, which was currently underway, would require a lot of water in the coming decades.

“The Yallourn mine will need at least 630 gigalitres of water for rehabilitation, while Hazelwood will require 637 gigalitres in their recent bulk water entitlement application.

“AGL’s Loy Yang [mine] requested 1,074 gigalitres of water for mine rehabilitation.

“All combined, that’s four and a half Sydney Harbour’s worth of water required for mine rehabilitation In the Latrobe Valley over the coming years.”

She noted that with the Latrobe River system’s current low water levels, building a nuclear power station in the region would have a devastating impact on river health and biodiversity.

“Increased demand for water for nuclear power generation will surely result in higher water prices,” she said.

“Competition for scarce resources will be intensified between mine rehabilitation, power generation, agriculture, residences, industries and much-needed environmental flows.”

Another concern of the environmental group was the possibility of a relaxation of laws and regulations concerning the usage of river water and groundwater for nuclear power generation when drought conditions struck where a nuclear power plant was built.

“This would be a tragic outcome for Australia’s ecology,” Sultana said.

“As the climate warms and dries further, water scarcity will become an increasingly bigger issue.

“Compounding all of these problems, the Latrobe Valley and Australia as a whole cannot afford to support nuclear development–the most intensive of all electricity sources.”

The nuclear pool and its vessel inside a nuclear reactor building in Flamanville, north-western France, on April 25, 2024. Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images

Renewables Help Solve Water Crisis: Environmental Group

At the same time, Sultana said renewables would be the solution for Australia’s energy transition and water crisis.

Pointing to the water consumption of wind and solar projects, the secretary said it was negligible compared to coal and nuclear.

“The uptake of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, [and] geothermal thermal will help ease the water crisis and quickly reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

Environmental Group Questioned About Data Accuracy

Meanwhile, Liberal MP Simon Kennedy questioned Sultana about the accuracy of the environmental group’s data, which said nuclear power plants consumed 20-25 percent more water than coal-fired ones.

Dan Caffrey, the president of Friends of Latrobe Water, who was also presented at the hearing, said he and Sultana got the data from experts at a nuclear advocacy group called Nuclear for Climate Australia.

Kennedy then asked whether the two environmental groups had come into contact with different evidence on nuclear plants’ water consumption.

“Are you aware of a 2017 Stanford University study that showed that nuclear plants, on average, use the same amount of water compared to coal-fired power stations, and that there are now numerous cooling technologies available, including dry cooling, which use significantly less water than that?” he asked.

While Sultana acknowledged that she was unaware of the above research, she still defended her view.

“Even if they use the same amount of water, we still don’t have the water here,” she said.

“The coal-fired power station is going to use all that water for their mine rehabilitation … plus we’re putting this nuclear power station here and the river systems that are already very, very stressed. It makes no sense when we talk about the social license part.”