NSW Productivity Commission slammed for recommending nuclear power while ignoring offshore wind   
Published: 3 Jun 2021
Maritime Union Of Australia.

The NSW Productivity Commission is under fire for recommending the NSW Government lift the state’s ban on nuclear power while ignoring proven, lower-cost renewable energy sources such as offshore wind.

Among 60 recommendations aimed at driving productivity and economic growth, the NSW Productivity Commission White Paper released this week proposed the ban on nuclear generation be lifted for small modular reactors.

The same report made no mention of offshore wind generation, despite the proven technology producing a growing share of electricity around the world and several major proposals awaiting approval off the NSW coast.

This is despite the CSIRO’s most recent report on electricity generation costs showing that SMR nuclear reactors cost approximately $16,000 per kilowatt, nearly three times offshore wind. Recent UK analysis has found the cost of developing offshore wind is even lower.

The Maritime Union of Australia said it was staggering that the NSW Productivity Commission would recommend resources be thrown into small modular nuclear reactors — a technology that doesn’t yet exist — instead of cheaper, cleaner, proven technologies like offshore wind.

“It is unbelievable that the NSW Productivity Commission would propose a major regulatory overhaul for a theoretical technology that doesn’t operate anywhere on earth, yet not even mention one of the fastest growing forms of energy generation,” MUA Deputy National Secretary Warren Smith said.

“Rather than waste years debating a theoretical technology, which will come with huge costs and substantial safety concerns, the NSW Government should be getting on with supporting the development of reliable, cheap, and plentiful offshore wind resources.

“The NSW Productivity Commission’s focus on an industry that doesn’t even exist, while ignoring a proven technology that can deliver power and jobs for NSW right now, shows an ideological pro-nuclear agenda has been put ahead of the state’s economic interests.   

“Small nuclear reactors have been promised for half a century, but as yet not one exists. Most countries with nuclear power are moving away from the technology, with new reactors running hugely over budget, requiring massive taxpayer subsidies, and locking in higher power prices for consumers.



“In contrast, offshore wind technology continues to mature, delivering massive growth at ever-lower prices.

“Australia has the advantage of long coastlines close to population centres, along with highly skilled seafarers and offshore oil and gas workers who could be utilised to construct local wind projects.

“The development of an offshore wind industry would also provide an opportunity to transition highly-skilled workers from fossil fuel industries into a clean, green alternative.

“With the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions to address global heating, it’s absurd that the NSW Productivity Commission would suggest sitting on our hands for a decade in the hope a theoretical technology will magically fix the problem when we already have solutions available.

“NSW has an opportunity to become a major exporter of clean, renewable energy, securing our economy for the future, but only if the Berejiklian Government takes immediate steps to support proven technologies.”

Wind and solar are not only inefficient on anything other than a small scale, but are an environmental disaster. Nuclear power on the other hand is efficient, safe and much better for the environment.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 12^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

(Not to mention submarines.... but Australia will buy French nuclear submarines and retrofit them with....er .... diesel engines. .)

John Smith wrote on Jun 12^th, 2021 at 12:30pm:



Lancet study:


The provision of electricity has been a great benefit to society, particularly in health terms, but it also carries health costs. Comparison of different forms of commercial power generation by use of the fuel cycle methods developed in European studies shows the health burdens to be greatest for power stations that most pollute outdoor air (those based on lignite, coal, and oil). The health burdens are appreciably smaller for generation from natural gas, and lower still for nuclear power. This same ranking also applies in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions and thus, potentially, to long-term health, social, and economic effects arising from climate change.

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext



https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/11/if-nuclear-power-is-so-safe-why-are-we-so-afraid-of-it/?sh=47033f5f6385


Follow the science, Gino, not your nose.

Frank wrote on Jun 12^th, 2021 at 12:41pm:



what  does the science say about Chernobyl or Fukushima?
What does the science say about the cost of storing and securing the waste for the next 10 000 years?

Frank wrote on Jun 12^th, 2021 at 4:34pm:



how typical to try and hide the truth by just looking at immediate deaths attributable to Chernobyl. People still die today from health issues they've suffered for the last 40 yrs due to Chernobyl ... but that'll never be attributed to Chernobyl. Neither have any of those thousands that have died since Chernobyl because of long term effects.

Frank wrote on Jun 12^th, 2021 at 10:53pm:



Don't go confusing him with facts