The ETU Nuclear Energy Report 2024 report represents 67,000 ETU electrical and electronic workers from around Australia and is endorsed by Tim Buckley, the Director of Clean Energy Finance, among others. The report concludes that nuclear power is unnecessary, expensive, slow to implement, and poses environmental, health, and geopolitical risks, advocating instead for a faster transition to renewable energy. Let’s explore the report and find out why the electrical industry is largely opposed.
What is the Electrical Trades Union (ETU)?
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) in Australia is a trade union representing electrical workers and related professionals across various industries, including construction, manufacturing, power generation, telecommunications, and renewable energy. It is part of the broader Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU), which advocates for the rights and interests of its members.
Key functions and objectives of the ETU
- Advocacy and representation: The ETU negotiates wages, conditions, and workplace safety on behalf of its members, ensuring fair treatment and proper remuneration.
- Workplace safety: The union prioritises the safety of electrical workers, promoting stringent safety standards, training, and regulatory compliance across the industry.
- Training and development: It supports apprenticeships, skill development, and upskilling programs to enhance the capabilities of its members and meet industry demands.
- Renewable energy transition: The ETU actively participates in discussions about Australia’s energy future, advocating for renewable energy and a just transition for workers affected by the shift from fossil fuels.
- Political advocacy: It campaigns for policies that benefit workers, including fair labour laws, environmental sustainability, and energy sector reforms.
The ETU is a key voice in Australia’s energy sector, shaping policies and promoting safe, fair, and sustainable practices for electrical workers and related industries.
What is the ETU Nuclear Energy Report 2024?
The ETU Nuclear Energy Report 2024, published by the Electrical Trades Union, examines the feasibility of establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia. Prompted by the Coalition’s recent nuclear power announcement, the ETU examined the real-world impact of a shift towards a new energy source in Australia. Let’s first look at the proposed changes should a Peter Dutton-led Coalition take office in 2025.
Proposed nuclear energy plan by Peter Dutton and the Australian Coalition
The Australian Coalition, led by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, has proposed integrating nuclear energy into the nation’s power grid as part of their energy policy for the 2025 federal election. Their plan includes constructing seven nuclear power plants at existing coal-fired power station sites, aiming to have these reactors operational by 2035.
The Coalition argues that incorporating nuclear energy will provide a more reliable and cost-effective energy supply compared to the current government’s renewables-only approach. They claim this strategy could save Australians up to $263 billion, a 44% reduction in total system costs, potentially leading to lower power bills for households and businesses.
However, this proposal has faced criticism. Experts warn that the development of nuclear power plants could result in significant cumulative emissions from the electricity grid, potentially exceeding 1.6 billion tonnes between 2025 and 2051.
Additionally, concerns have been raised about the high costs and long timelines associated with nuclear energy projects, suggesting they may not effectively address Australia’s immediate energy needs or climate goals.
The Coalition’s nuclear energy plan is a central element of their broader energy policy platform as they approach the 2025 federal election.
Key takeaways from the ETU Nuclear Energy Report 2024
The report found that nuclear energy is simply not a feasible nor realistic option for Australia’s current and future energy needs. The key takeaways are:
Nuclear power is unnecessary for Australia’s energy needs
- Australia possesses abundant renewable energy resources, including solar and wind, capable of meeting and exceeding current and future energy demands. The report emphasises that advancements in renewable technologies and energy storage solutions render nuclear power redundant in the Australian context.
High costs and delayed implementation
- Cost comparison: The report highlights that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for nuclear power is significantly higher than that for renewables. For instance, the LCOE for nuclear power is estimated to be around $120-330 per MWh, whereas for wind and solar power, it ranges between $50-65 per MWh.
- Construction timelines: Nuclear power plants have lengthy construction periods, often spanning 10-15 years, delaying their contribution to immediate energy needs and climate targets.
Technical, environmental, and health challenges
- Nuclear waste management: The report points out the absence of a long-term solution for high-level nuclear waste in Australia, posing significant environmental and health risks.
- Safety concerns: Historical nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, underscore the potentially catastrophic risks associated with nuclear energy.
Baseload and firming arguments debunked
- Renewables with storage offer reliability: The traditional argument for nuclear power revolves around its ability to provide “baseload” energy—a consistent and uninterrupted power supply. However, the report emphasises that Australia’s energy grid no longer requires a constant baseload source. Instead, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, coupled with energy storage technologies (e.g. batteries and pumped hydro), can deliver consistent power.
- Dynamic grid requirements: Modern grids need flexible energy generation to accommodate fluctuating demand and intermittent supply. Renewables paired with smart grid technologies are better suited for this than the inflexible output of nuclear plants.
- Comparative analysis: The report cites studies showing that Australia’s transition to 100% renewable energy is feasible and cost-effective. Examples include the use of virtual power plants (VPPs) and grid-scale batteries, which already provide firming capacity.
Distracts from renewable energy transition
- Investment misallocation: Deploying nuclear power would require significant financial investment—estimated in the range of $100 billion for construction alone. Redirecting these funds to renewable energy projects could result in faster deployment of clean energy technologies, benefiting both the economy and the environment.
- Long lead times: Nuclear projects typically take 10-15 years to become operational, delaying Australia’s ability to meet pressing climate goals. In contrast, solar farms and wind turbines can be installed in months or a few years.
- Worker transition opportunities: The ETU highlights the importance of a just transition for workers affected by coal closures. Investment in renewables and storage creates more jobs per dollar spent compared to nuclear power, providing better opportunities for regional communities.
Negative Impact on Strategic Relationships
- Pacific nations’ opposition: The report includes statements from Pacific leaders, such as Vanuatu’s Deputy Speaker Andrew Solomon Napuat and former Kiribati President Anote Tong. Both expressed concerns about Australia pursuing nuclear energy, fearing environmental risks and undermining Australia’s leadership on climate action. Vanuatu’s first deputy speaker of Parliament, Andrew Solomon Napuat, stated that the prospect of Australia establishing nuclear activities in the Pacific is “very concerning” and lacks their support.
- Nuclear transport risks: Shipping nuclear materials through Pacific waters raises safety concerns for neighbouring nations. Potential accidents or spills could jeopardize marine ecosystems and harm Australia’s strategic relationships.
- Undermines climate leadership: The report argues that adopting nuclear power contradicts Australia’s efforts to lead on climate action, especially in a region heavily affected by climate change. This could damage Australia’s credibility in climate negotiations and regional diplomacy.
Recommendation for renewables
- Renewables are economical and scalable: Renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, and battery storage have seen dramatic cost reductions over the last decade. The report underscores that renewables offer Australia the lowest-cost pathway to decarbonisation.
- Faster deployment: Unlike nuclear power, which takes over a decade to establish, renewable energy projects can be deployed rapidly to address immediate energy demands and reduce emissions.
- Community and worker benefits: A focus on renewables ensures a just transition for workers displaced by the closure of coal-fired power stations. The report suggests that renewable energy investment could create tens of thousands of jobs in Australia, particularly in regional areas.
- Alignment with climate goals: Transitioning to a renewable energy system aligns with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions and limit global warming to 1.5°C.
The bottom line
The ETU opposes nuclear energy in Australia, arguing it is unnecessary, costly, slow to deploy, and fraught with technical, environmental, and geopolitical risks. They advocate for renewable energy as a faster, more affordable, and sustainable solution, creating jobs, supporting communities, and meeting climate goals.
Australians should consider the ETU’s analysis, backed by expert research, which highlights how renewable energy offers a practical path to a cleaner, more reliable, and equitable energy future that aligns with global climate commitments and regional stability.
Stay tuned for part 2 of our series where we will explore nuclear power worldwide – success cases and cautionary tales.
