Nuclear power: ‘Unclear how much the ag sector will have to give up’, Watt says

Almost 12,000 farms could be impacted under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear energy in Australia, the federal government says.

Almost 12,000 farms could be impacted under Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear energy in Australia, if the nation follows similar guidelines seen in the United States, the Federal government says.

Currently, farms within a 80-kilometre zone of a nuclear reactor in American states such as Illinois, California, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri and Florida have to follow detailed guidelines to protect their food supply in the event of an accident.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said Mr Dutton must “urgently” explain whether Australian farmers would be subject to similar regulations, if the Coalition’s nuclear plan ends up going ahead.

Analysis from the Parliamentary Library and the ABS indicated about 11,955 farms would be within the 80km radius of the proposed sites.

“Based on international practice, farmers would need to take expensive steps during a nuclear leak and would need to inform their customers that they operate within the fallout zone,” Mr Watt said.

“It’s bizarre that the Nationals and Liberals are putting at risk our prime agricultural land like this, especially without the decency to explain it to farmers and consumers how they’d mitigate all the potential impacts.”

“The question needs to be put to the federal opposition: What requirements are going to be put on Australian farmers if we were to have an accident here?

“Of course we hope there wouldn’t be an accident, but there’s never any guarantee of that.”

WEDNESDAY

Nuclear power generation is a “thirsty endeavour” that could threaten Australian farmers’ access to water, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt says.

The significant volume of water required to generate nuclear power has been missing from the debate around the alternate energy source proposed by the Coalition as Australia moves away from coal-fired power, Mr Watt said.

At The Australian’s Global Food Forum on Wednesday, the Queensland Senator said he saw this as a risk that raised “very specific issues” for Australia’s ag sector.

“(Opposition leader) Peter Dutton hasn’t outlined where any additional water is going to come from for his nuclear reactors.

“Many of his proposed reactors are located in prime agricultural regions, including just north of here at Tarong in the South Burnett, which is next door to the Great Artesian Basin,” Mr Watt said.

“It is still unclear just how much water the ag sector may have to give up for those nuclear reactors to operate. Or how much more farmers would have to pay for their water, against this competing use.

“These are just more questions about nuclear power that remain unanswered. And I think our ag sector deserves answers.”

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has warned there isn’t enough detail around the water requirements of the Coalition’s proposed nuclear sites. Picture: Martin Ollman

Nationals leader David Littleproud described Mr Watt’s comments as scaremongering, and quickly moved to allay concerns.

He said Mr Dutton had already stated the seven reactors proposed by the opposition would be limited by the existing coal plants’ water entitlements, “so nothing was taken from agriculture or communities”.

“By transforming existing coal-fired power plants to nuclear energy plants we will alleviate the need for 28,000 kilometres worth of new transition lines and as a result, reduce the need to rip up prime agricultural land to host renewable energy projects and new transmission lines,” Mr Littleproud said.

Water is used to cool a nuclear power plant’s heat generating radioactive core. In determining an appropriate site, the plant needs access to large quantities of water for this process.

Director of energy research at the Centre for Independent Studies, Aidan Morrison, said farmers should have no concerns about the water requirements of nuclear power.

“The amount of water required is very similar in volume (to coal). One reason naming coal-fired power sites is sensible is because they already have a similar water requirement, which is being met … If we haven’t had a problem so far we wouldn’t have a problem when switching to nuclear,” he said.

A chart in the World Energy Outlook 2016 shows that nuclear and conventional coal plants are very similar in both water consumption and withdrawal litres per MWh, according to The World Nuclear Association.