Dutton’s dangerous nuclear fantasy will cost workers, says ACTU
Media Release - June 19, 2024 ACTU.
The ACTU condemns Peter Dutton’s election promise of building nuclear power plants as ‘dangerous’ and ‘costly’ for Australian workers.

Today, the Coalition proposed seven nuclear power sites covering five states: Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. Dutton claimed that the first sites would be operational between 2035 and 2037, significantly earlier than the 2040 timeframe the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible, even with the assumption of no project delays.

According to the CSIRO, nuclear power is at least twice as expensive as renewable energy, while the Clean Energy Council estimates it to be six times as expensive.

Dutton’s proposal lacks key details of serious concern to workers, such as the handling and disposal of nuclear waste and the transportation of radioactive materials through Australian communities. Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years and requires burial hundreds of metres below ground in concrete bunkers.

Australia has the most sun and wind per capita of any developed country and evidence shows renewables continue to be the single cheapest source of new power on the grid.

The ACTU warns that Dutton’s proposal would derail Australia’s path to cheaper and cleaner energy, including the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs to be created as part of the federal government’s plan to transform Australia into a renewable energy superpower with the Future Made in Australia policy.

Today’s proposal builds on Dutton’s recent announcement opposing the government’s internationally agreed emissions reduction targets, while failing to outline a 2030 emissions reduction target of his own before the election.

Quotes attributable to ACTU President Michele O’Neil:

“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy is costly for workers, expensive for families and dangerous for local communities.

“Working people in these communities need good, secure, safe jobs now – not in 20 years time with no plan or detail.

“All the experts agree that nuclear power is slow, expensive, and dangerous. This will mean higher power prices, fewer clean energy jobs, and greater risks for workers’ health and safety.

“Dutton wants to put workers’ safety and livelihoods at risk, all so he can appease climate change deniers in the Coalition who oppose clean energy.

“From opposing workers’ rights to promoting his nuclear fantasy, Peter Dutton is the Mr Burns of Australian politics. He is simply out of touch with the everyday struggles of working Australians.

“Australia has so much potential to become a clean energy superpower and create thousands of jobs with the federal government’s Future Made in Australia plan. Instead, we have an Opposition Leader who is obsessed with playing politics with the lives of workers and taking Australia backwards.”

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:22am:


The plan was designed first with the goal of using more Coal and Gas as demanded by their mining industry benefactors and worked backwards from there.

More Coal means fewer renewables, but they have to pretend to care about climate change otherwise they'll never win back the teal votes.

So how can they attack renewables, champion coal and gas and pretend to care about emissions?

Nuclear.

It takes a quarter of a century for experienced countries to build their reactors, so without any delays or setbacks that's already secured 25+ years of more coal and gas, and because of the enormous cost of Nuclear, they'll be incentivised to hurt the renewables industry, scaring off investment so it doesn't continue to get cheaper.

More expensive renewables make nuclear look relatively cheaper.

That's not to mention that they need legislative change before they can even begin, so add years on for that.

If they were serious about the energy, they needed to identify and forecast our future needs and start from there and work backwards, and if they cared about emissions, that would be the guiding hand for their tech.

But they care about coal and Gina.

Right now we know nothing about their plan's generation capacity and what will be their shortfall backup.

It's obvious that it's not a serious plan and they've already said they won't release a bunch of the detail until after the election.

It's politically driven bullshit and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, other than it being a massive risk if they actually win and are forced to implement it.

Just build efficient coal/gas power stations to power all the new electric cars.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:16am:


Quote:


Yes and one day such a thing will exist.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:47am:

I believe a mix of coal, natural environment energy, gas and nuclear is the best solution.
One industry failure is another success.

We need reliable AFFORDABLE energy .

Let's not put our eggs in one basket.

All these numbers about wind and solar being cheaper exclude transmission, which is a massive part of your electricity bill. The new transmission lines cost a lot of money to build and their on going maintenance has to be factored in

But the CSIRO for some reason don't include new transmission in their figures.

There is a lot of irrational fear around nuclear. All these silly thoughts about nuclear bombs and nuclear war. Totally unrelated to nuclear power.

Quote:


What makes you think that?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 12:47am:



The war in Ukraine has shown what has happened when a nation gives up their nuclear weapons.

Now every country will have to consider making their own nukes.