PART 3 – NUCLEAR REACTOR SITING – THEN & NOW
In May 2006, little Johnny Howard ordered a ‘full-blooded’ debate into nuclear power industry for Australia and to that end, he established the Nuclear Taskforce which was to report on the nuclear potential for Australia. The Australia Institute in January 2007 released a report covering this taskforce’s findings.
Before we discuss it further, it is our contention that Peter Dutton has never even seen or read that report! His current nuclear proposals appear to be based on zero homework and even less than that in technical knowledge on the matter.
To start the ball rolling, the Taskforce listed 19 sites for potential nuclear reactors – later Howard raised the number to 25. A list by State is shown in the report with the exception of Western Australia and the Northern Territory which do not come under the banner of the National Energy Market (NEM). Tasmania has no need of nuclear power as it already has 100% renewable power.
Peter Dutton’s latest nuclear ‘plans’ appear to mention 6 possible sites. As we are still awaiting his detailed plan, all we know is that he favours co-locating nuclear plants close to existing or former coal-fired sites to take advantage of existing transmission infrastructure. What he has not divulged yet, amongst a whole host of issues, is the fact that the transmission infrastructure will also need expansion just as renewables do. Be interesting to see what Dutton covers in his party’s plans. Actually, will they be coalition plans or just Dutton’s? Seems not many of the faithful are keen on playing host to nuclear reactors! Dutton’s 6 sites will no doubt be in QLD, NSW and VIC – even Anglesea’s former black coal mine and power station (ex-Alcoa) have been mooted. We can be certain that an Anglesea plant will never fly given that the site has already been completely rehabilitated !
Howard’s taskforce used 4 primary criteria to identify the 19 most likely nuclear power sites. These are the primary criteria used:
Criterion A.1 - Sites close to the NEM, preferably near existing large generators.
Criterion A.2 - Sites near major centres of electricity demand.
Criterion A.3 - Sites near suitable transport infrastructure.
Criterion A.4 - Coastal sites with access to seawater for cooling purposes.
Just so you know, these were the sites they chose – compare them with Dutton’s if and when he produces his list:
· in Queensland (7) – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
· in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (5) – Port Stephens, Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet;
· in Victoria (4) – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
· in South Australia (3) – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie.
They then used 7 secondary criteria to identify potential issues at these sites. These criteria are more detailed but this is the summary which gives a good idea of how issues were assessed. We can only assume that Mr Dutton has some kind of primary and secondary criteria – but then research and homework are not his strong point!
Criterion B.1 - Sites with adequate buffers to populated areas.
Criterion B.2 - Sites with an appropriate geological and seismological profile.
Criterion B.3 - Sites with low risk of extreme weather events and suitable pollution dispersion conditions.
Criterion B.4 - Sites with low security risks (e.g. sufficient buffers to potentially hazardous areas).
Criterion B.5 - Sites that pose minimal risk to important ecological areas.
Criterion B.6 - Sites that pose minimal risk to important heritage areas.
Criterion B.7 - Sites that accommodate local economic and social factors
The taskforce even went to the trouble of explaining how, for each criterion above, they went about identifying suitable sites using a variety of tools depending on the criterion. Even Google Earth got a guernsey!
The bottom line to nuclear power plant siting though is the fact that even if half the polled population in 2007 were in favour of nuclear, over 2 thirds wanted no bar of them in their local area. Today those figures are much higher. All evidence from overseas indicates the same major blockage – siting. One thing Dutton or any government for that matter will not get away with is bludgeoning the public by imposing nuclear power plants on them!
Table 1 following section 4 of the report mentioned above gives a succinct but reasonably detailed view of each of the original 19 chosen nuclear sites. This is well worth a review when weighing up whatever Dutton conjures up for his proposal.
One standout criterion for Australian nuclear is water! We don’t have the fresh water resources so you can safely bet that whatever Dutton suggests, it will have to rely on coastal siting in order to utilise salt water for cooling. And that we know does NOT necessarily equate to emissions-free cooling! Unlike renewables.
And yes, we are aware of Dutton’s probable motive behind going nuclear – he and his cronies will be endeavouring to prolong the life of their beloved fossil fuels! (Wonder if ScoMo bequeathed Spud his lump of coal!?!)
GB / AB
Comments