2 weeks Ago By The Guardian
The Coalition did not approach Geoscience Australia to ask about the suitability of any of , including asking about risks from earthquakes, . The government called the parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise the Coalition’s proposals to lift the country’s ban on nuclear energy and build taxpayer-funded reactors at seven sites. One renewables industry figure attacked the Coalition’s plans during the hearing, saying it was a “smokescreen” to continue to burn coal and gas.
During the hearing on Monday, officials from Geoscience Australia said it would probably take two years to carry out comprehensive “geohazard” assessments for each site that would look at risks including earthquakes and tsunamis, and geological formations beneath each site such as groundwater sources and caves. The opposition’s energy spokesman, Ted O’Brien, who is the deputy chair of the inquiry, said the two-year timeframe was in line with the Coalition’s expectations. Inquiry chair, Labor MP Dan Repacholi, had asked about , where the Coalition wants to put a reactor at Liddell coal-fired power station.
O’Brien revealed the Coalition had taken advice from Prof Andrew Whittaker, a US-based expert on seismic events in relation to nuclear energy. Whittaker had assured him, O’Brien said, that the earthquakes in the Hunter would be “inconsequential” to the operation of a nuclear power plant. But Dr John Dawson, a branch head of community safety at Geoscience Australia, said any site assessment would require “detailed investigation” before “anyone can say definitively if these sites are suitable”.
“International experience would indicate that the studies would take probably in the order of two years depending on the complexity of the facility,” he said. O’Brien asked Dawson how Australia’s seismicity (frequency of earthquakes) compared with countries already using nuclear power, such as Japan, South Korea, France, the US and Canada. Dawson said it was considered comparatively low.
John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, an advocacy group representing clean energy businesses, told the inquiry the Coalition’s plan was “all about attacking renewables and boosting fossil fuels”. Grimes, recalling , labelled the proposal “today’s version of a lump of coal in parliament”. “The motivation [of the Coalition’s plan] is to attack renewables and hold them back,” he said.
“Nothing has changed. This is a smokescreen.” The committee is due to deliver a final report no later than 30 April 2025, which is likely to be before the next general election.
.
