Australians don’t want a nuclear wasteland in their backyards

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s promise to build nuclear power stations will undoubtedly create immediate security and environmental conundrums, but the biggest problem will be eternal life. For nuclear waste, like so-called “forever chemicals”, never really dies.

Peter Dutton claimed the nuclear waste from a small reactor each year would fit in a Coke can.Credit: Marija Ercogovac

Dutton once said a small nuclear reactor would produce only enough nuclear waste each year to fill a Coke can – but it seems Australia will be saddled with large amounts of toxic pollution should the Coalition get to build seven nuclear power stations across the country.

Herald climate and energy reporter Mike Foley has estimated that once all seven plants were up and running, they would produce 140 cubic metres – or 140,000 litres – of waste annually and fill 880 oil barrels (the old 42-gallon drum), or 70,440 barrels over their expected lifetimes.

Dutton’s Coke can hyperbole aside, he claims his $331 billion nuclear power plan would deliver huge savings over Labor’s renewables policy. However, since he revealed his costings last Friday, politicians, scientists and commentators have attacked the highly questionable assumptions that Australians’ power use won’t surge rapidly and the need for coal plants would continue for decades longer than forecast. The CSIRO’s prediction that it was impossible to build the first nuclear plant by 2037 further undermined his proposal.

Dutton said the nuclear waste would be dealt with by new facilities yet to be built, to store waste associated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program. Australia has banned nuclear power and the waste from other countries associated with the AUKUS fleet, and Dutton’s power plants make both proposals a big ask for a nation with such little experience in dealing with the challenges of storing the toxic byproducts from the production of nuclear power.

Australia’s nuclear industry is small, and storing nuclear waste has always been problematic. Australia leaves radioactive waste in hundreds of locations around the country, including hospitals, science facilities and universities. The vast majority of Australia’s radioactive waste comes from nuclear medicine. Over the years, fuel used by Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for research and 5.5 million doses of nuclear medicine have been moved from a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights and shipped to France, where the highly radioactive content was removed by extracting uranium and plutonium, and the leftover waste returned to Australia.

The Federal Court last year ruled against plans by the former Coalition government to build a nuclear waste dump at Kimba in South Australia, after a court challenge by the traditional owners, the Barngarla people. Legislation was passed last October designating zones in Western Australia and South Australia, but the Albanese government has yet to announce a site.

A major hurdle facing politicians looking to store nuclear waste in Australian backyards is voters don’t want it there. And given the problems we have endured in dealing with low-level nuclear waste over decades, voters are right to be concerned how the country would fare in arranging and negotiating proper arrangements for significant amounts of the stuff.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.