�鶹��ý

Activists around Australia are preparing a determined response to the federal Coalition’s plans to construct seven nuclear power plants in five states by the mid-2030s.

Wendy Farmer, president of Voices of the Valley, in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, told �鶹��ý on July 24 that she was in touch with opponents of nuclear power in each of the regions immediately affected.

She said a community alliance was being formed to help coordinate campaigning. It has issued a petition aimed at Coalition MPs and federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

: “There has been no consultation or free prior and informed consent from Traditional Owners.

“You never asked locals if they want nuclear reactors in their back yards. Instead, you threaten compulsory acquisition and federal overrides with no right to veto.

“We want secure jobs and affordable, proven renewable energy now—not half-baked nuclear plans for 2040 or beyond.”

on June 19, the civil nuclear scheme will go on record as one of the most astoundingly inept policy initiatives ever ventured by a major political party.

No attempt has been even made to give an for its proposal, with Dutton saying such details will be provided “in due course”.

No thought seems to have been given to the question of how nuclear might fit within the country’s energy system, now increasingly based on renewables.

The vexed question of nuclear safety has been ignored as, substantially, has that of radioactive waste disposal. Then there are the impacts on greenhouse emissions.

Nuclear power is notorious for its lengthy construction times, with targets routinely missed by many years. In the meantime, coal plants and gas-fired installations would be kept running.

Dutton has repeatedly claimed, most recently on , that “nuclear provides cheap electricity”. A mountain of international evidence says otherwise. The nukes — if they eventuate — will be an economic atrocity.

The CSIRO’s most recent GenCost report puts the “levelised cost” in 2030 of solar and wind plus storage at $91 to $130 per megawatt-hour.

The report estimates the corresponding cost of electricity from a large-scale at between $141 and $233 per megawatt-hour —comparing the mid-points in the estimates, a likely 70% more.

In Trump-like fashion, as “discredited”.

But contracts signed recently for new nukes in Czechia suggest the real price would be . Not only that, prices for renewable electricity in Australia .

Meanwhile, residents and local authorities near the proposed reactor sites have had the Coalition’s scheme dumped on them, with no consultation.

The , the designated site for the South Australian nukes, said on June 20: “The Council has not been formally contacted regarding the nuclear power plant proposal and has not received any information.”

Indeed, Dutton and his shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien seem not to have performed even elementary checks before announcing the proposed locations of the plants.

In the case of the Port Augusta, it promises a planning shambles — and that may well the same in other states.

Dutton and O’Brien assumed that where coal-fired plants had been shut down, or would close in coming years, nuclear plants could simply be plugged in.

This is not necessarily so. Near Port Augusta, SA’s last coal-fired plant shut down in 2016. But time has not stood still and on the now privately-owned power station site, work is set to begin on a $125-million green cement plant. An export port is also planned.

The transmission lines linking Port Augusta to the wider grid remain — but they are not unused. Since 2016, the Upper Spencer Gulf region around Port Augusta has emerged as a thriving hub of renewable energy generation, with massive wind and solar PV farms.

As a result, there is almost on the transmission lines that link the region to the broader energy market. To accommodate a Port Augusta nuclear plant, hundreds of kilometres of new high-tension lines would have to be built.

Abundant locally-produced renewable energy is drawing large new industries to the Upper Spencer Gulf region. Projects that have been mooted and, in some cases, begun include renewable hydrogen, metals processing including green steel and water desalination.

But the energy has to be cheap — and nuclear power is not in the race.

In general, nuclear power provides an absurdly poor fit with SA’s energy grid, known for its world-leading use of renewables.

For extended periods each summer, wind and solar provide 100% of the state’s energy needs, reliably and at exceptionally low wholesale cost. By 2027, the system is to be 100% net-renewable.

So where is the room for nuclear? That is the story in just one state.

Around the country, there will be many more pitfalls waiting for a hubristic politician who thinks himself entitled to spout policy based on make believe.

Some of Dutton’s “facts” are truly comedic — in a very dark kind of way.

On June 19 : “If you look at a 470-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke every year”. The scientific consensus is: .

Lethally dangerous, the waste would need to be kept isolated for tens of thousands of years, at monumental expense.

The way Dutton has drawn up and pushed his scheme — distracted, and without regard for normal process — has convinced various commentators that his whole quest is just a ploy for handing billions of dollars in continuing business to fossil-fuel mates.

There is something to be said for this view: The Coalition’s endorsement of nuclear can only have a deadening effect on investment in renewables.

Until the nuclear plants begin turning out electricity — sometime in the 2040s according to most analysts — the coal and especially fossil gas corporations will be able to carry on digging, drilling, polluting and profiting.

None of the above, however, proves that Dutton and his front-benchers are not fervent believers in nuclear power.

Indeed, their faith seems to have remained undimmed even while the absurdities of their scheme shred their claim to be superior economic managers.

Belief in nuclear power, just like hatred of “greenies”, is an ideological fixation of many conservatives.

It would be very foolish to suppose that, in power, the Coalition would not set about doing exactly as it has promised.

For this reason, broad-based campaigning against Dutton’s plans is essential.

[Renfrey Clarke is a long-time anti-nuclear campaigner and a member of . Sign the petition .]