Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This debate on energy is important in Australia. Debate is important, but the argument that is currently coming from the Liberal opposition has exceptionally minimal detail for an extraordinarily large-scale project: minimal detail on cost; minimal detail on the time to build and the construction timeline itself; minimal detail on the legislative requirements that would be needed with the states and territories and also, quite importantly, the use of water—ocean water, fresh water and the like—and the storage of nuclear waste. All of these are important factors in this debate, but we have not heard any credible argument come from this Liberal opposition about these points. This minimal detail is underwhelming, it's disappointing but it's not unsurprising. Minimal detail has been provided to the parliament, to the scientific and energy communities, and, most importantly, to the Australian people—and that is not good enough.

Let's go through a few important points when it comes to nuclear energy production. The Liberal and National Party want to build nuclear reactors right across our country. Well then, if you want to play scientist, let's go through a few things. What reactor type are we talking about? Are we talking about a pressurised water reactor, a boiling water reactor, a pressurised heavy water reactor, a light water graphite reactor, an advanced gas-cooled reactor, a fast neutron reactor or a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor? Which one?

Once we've decided on the reactor type, then there are a few other not-so-minor issues we've got to go through. What fuel are we going to use for our nuclear reactor? Is it going to be enriched uranium dioxide, natural uranium or plutonium oxide? Which one are we going to use here? And what coolant? I know the member for Fairfax needs a bit of this sometimes! Is it going to be water, heavy water, carbon dioxide, liquid sodium or helium? And, at the end of the day, what moderator are we going to use? Water, heavy water or graphite?

The lack of detail and clarity is concerning. Those opposite, claiming that they are a viable alternative government based on this policy alone, are not being upfront with the Australian people, which makes them reckless. It makes them dangerous and, most of all, it makes them deceptive.

Further to these points, on average it takes about 9.4 years to build a nuclear power station. According to the Climate Council, Australia's first nuclear power station will take a lot longer. This is in direct contrast to the assertions being made by the Liberal Party that these nuclear facilities will be built rapidly.

It's also important to note that the World nuclear industry status report 2019which, I will just say, is considered to be the authoritative report on the status of nuclear power plants worldwide—notes:

Trend indicators in the report suggest that the nuclear industry may have reached its historic maxima: nuclear power generation peaked in 2006, the number of reactors in operation in 2002, the share of nuclear power in the electricity mix in 1996, the number of reactors under construction in 1979—

well before I was born. That's just on that.

Now let's look at water, an overwhelmingly precious resource in Australia. In nuclear power stations, water cools the radioactive cores and the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides. Further, figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency show that 45 per cent of nuclear power plants use the sea for once-through cooling, 26 per cent use cooling towers from water mains and then lakes and rivers are used as well, dictated by what is nearest to that plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one reactor requires between 1,514 litres and 2,725 litres of water per megawatt hour. That equates to billions of gallons of water per year, and all of this water requires filtering somehow. In a country where water is precious—something that they seem to not understand—this plan for nuclear energy is ultimately irresponsible.

See this speech in context