Australian conservation groups slam Federal Coalition’s “nuclear fantasy” plan as “a poison pill”

Conservation groups across Australia have slammed the Federal Coalition’s nuclear plans, describing them as “a poison pill” locking the country into fossil fuels for decades to come.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the party’s nuclear plans last month, which would see a reactor built at Collie’s Muja Power Station and several other locations across the country if the Coalition returns to power at the next Federal election.

Soon after the plans were revealed, conservation groups from across the country called out the proposal.

The Conservation Council of WA stated nuclear was no climate solution, with campaign director Mia Pepper calling the proposal a clear plan to distract and delay real action on climate change.

“Nuclear power is expensive, slow and dangerous, and simply cannot deliver the energy needed in the time frame we have to decarbonise,” she said.

“We have cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that are already delivering energy to hundreds of thousands of Australians.”

Ms Pepper said all West Australians had every right to be alarmed and concerned by the plan, which she said showed a complete disregard for the Collie community’s safety and input into future energy options.

“There is no workforce, there are huge complexities with safety and security, the need for new laws and regulators who understand them,” she said.

“We don’t have 15 years to wait for an energy option that is dirty, dangerous, thirsty and increasingly insecure in a changing climate.”

The Australian Conservation Foundation was also quick to critique the Coalition’s proposal, pointing out the significant costs associated with the development of reactors and the increased reliance on fossil fuels which would be in place during their development.

Chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said there was no chance a nuclear power station could be built before the mid-2040s.

“So, if you’re promoting nuclear, you are prolonging the use of fossil fuels,” she said.

Ms O’Shanassy said nuclear power was also dramatically more costly than investment in solar or wind.

“CSIRO modelling shows nuclear power is five to 10 times more expensive to generate than solar or wind power,” she said.

“Be in no doubt that extra costs of nuclear would be passed on to electricity users.

“On environmental and economic grounds, our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”

Also dismissing the nuclear plans was Greenpeace Australia Pacific, which also described the plan as a bad-faith tactic to prop up climate-wrecking coal, oil and gas for as long as possible.

Chief executive David Ritter said there was not a “shred of credibility” to the Federal Coalition’s claims nuclear was a climate solution in Australia.

“Australians want and need credible climate action from their elected leaders,” he said.

“It is impossible to take the Coalition seriously on climate while it backs a doomed-to-fail technology like nuclear, while threatening to scrap renewable projects if elected.”

Mr Ritter said Greenpeace had a long and proud history of fighting against nuclear power and would continue to challenge the technology when cleaner, safer and cheaper renewable solutions existed.

“Let’s name the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy for what it is,” he said.

“A poison pill that claims to reduce emissions but instead locks us into coal and gas for decades.”