Tanya Plibersek is also speaking to the modelling showing that Peter Dutton’s ‘proposed’ (the Coalition are not actually intending on making any of this a reality, but it’s working a treat to muddy the renewable energy transition – which was the point) nuclear plants would use three times as much water as a coal-fired power station.

You can read more on that, here

Plibersek says Australia is a “thirsty country” with “regular droughts” and there is already “a lot of contest about how we use water” so questions what the plan is here.

“What this analysis shows is to produce the same amount of electricity as coal, you need 40% more water. But Peter Dutton is saying that he wants to produce more electricity, and he wants to do it on existing coal-fired power stations and use the water that’s being used to produce coal to produce nuclear. Well, you’d actually need three times as much water as is currently being used on those coal-fired power stations to produce the amount of water that Peter Dutton’s talking about,” she said.

Ok, but what is that in the standard Australian measurement of water?

Plibersek:

“It’s about an extra Sydney Harbour’s worth of water that we would have to find every year.

Thank you.

Plibersek continues:

We’ve seen already overseas – in Europe, for example – in hot, dry years, nuclear reactors having to be shut down or reduce their production capacity ’cause the water isn’t there. When the water is used in those nuclear reactors, it’s released into the environment warm – warmer than it normally would be – and that obviously has environmental impacts all of its own. So, this is just one more question for Peter Dutton about his very vague nuclear plans. Where is the water coming from? Will it come from agriculture? Will it come from industry? Will it come from drinking water? Will it come from the environment? Where is the water coming from? I think it’s important that Peter Dutton is actually held to account for some of these details.

Very few details about nuclear energy. I think most serious analysis would say this is just an excuse to keep coal going longer*. That’s an extra 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution into our atmosphere by 2050 on Peter Dutton’s plans. The other thing I think it’s really important to say is we have already put more renewable energy into our grid than Peter Dutton is claiming will go in with nuclear energy some time in the 2040s. We’ve already added that in terms of extra renewable energy. Renewable energy is happening now. I’ve approved 72 renewable energy projects – enough to power 8 million homes. This transition is happening now, and the biggest risk to this transition to produce cheaper, cleaner renewable energy is this nuclear fantasy that delays action.

*I mean, yes.