The Loy Yang power plant in Victoria’s La Trobe Valley has long stood as a symbol of Australia’s energy landscape. Recently, it became a focal point in the debate surrounding the Coalition’s ambitious nuclear energy proposal.
A report commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, authored by Prof Andrew Campbell from the Australian National University, revealed a concerning finding. It stated that approximately 90% of the proposed nuclear generation capacity lacked access to sufficient water to operate safely.
“At Loy Yang in Victoria, Mt Piper in NSW and Muja in Western Australia, existing water availability is already so constrained that new nuclear power stations of the capacities proposed would lack sufficient cooling water to provide reliable power now.”
This revelation painted a grim picture for the feasibility of the Coalition’s plan which aimed to replace coal generation with nuclear technology. The report emphasized that even if significant irrigation water entitlements were acquired, ensuring a reliable water supply for these reactors over an extended period remained questionable.
Dave Sweeney, a nuclear policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, shed light on why nuclear energy posed unique challenges due to its substantial water requirements. He described nuclear power as the “thirstiest” among energy sources, demanding large volumes of water for various operational needs.
“On a per-kilowatt hour basis, nuclear power used more water than coal.”
Dr Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW highlighted an essential contrast between traditional energy sources and renewables. While coal and nuclear plants heavily rely on water for cooling purposes, solar and wind technologies operate without such requirements.
Australia’s arid climate added another layer of complexity to the water scarcity issue associated with nuclear power. Given that Australia ranks as one of the driest continents globally (excluding Antarctica), every drop becomes precious when considering large-scale industrial needs like those of nuclear facilities.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering underscored this concern in its submission to a Senate inquiry. It emphasized that given existing pressures on water supply and frequent droughts in Australia, evaluating the impact of increased water usage from potential nuclear reactors was paramount.
Tony Irwin, a seasoned nuclear engineer from the Australian National University, supported this notion by explaining how typical nuclear power stations consumed slightly more water than their coal-fired counterparts due to their size differences.
“There were other technologies like dry cooling plants which reduced the need for vast amounts of fresh water but required advanced setups.”
While some advanced cooling technologies could mitigate these demands, they often came at higher costs – an aspect that conflicted with the Coalition’s preference for readily available solutions mentioned in Campbell’s report.
Andrew Gregson from Liberals Against Nuclear expressed concerns about how pursuing additional resources for powering these plants might strain relationships with agricultural communities. The delicate balance between serving national energy interests and safeguarding local ecosystems became apparent amidst these debates.
In conclusion, Australia finds itself at a crossroads where aspirations for cleaner energy intersect with pressing environmental challenges like limited freshwater resources. As policymakers navigate this complex terrain guided by expert insights and public opinion dynamics,
the path towards sustainable energy solutions may require innovative thinking and collaborative efforts across various sectors involved.
Leave feedback about this