Nuclear an expensive threat to Queensland's drinking water and communities

A new report has ignited significant concerns that nuclear power in Queensland would be a direct threat to our water supply, potentially discharging nuclear toxins into water sources that provide drinking water in SEQ and water used to irrigate crops in the regions.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet has released new analysis (PDF 1mb) that clearly shows the Federal Coalition's nuclear power policy is a threat to Queensland's water security in Brisbane and the regions.

The report shows that nuclear power stations use up to 83% more water than coal power stations.

The cabinet report also indicates that SEQ's drinking water and water used to irrigate crops could be at risk. The proposed Tarong nuclear station would be likely to draw water from Boondoomba Dam in the South Burnett region and from Wivenhoe Dam as an emergency reserve when Boondoomba Dam runs low during droughts.

Queensland Conservation Council is urgently calling for a re-evaluation of nuclear power proposals by the Federal Coalition due to the significant and unsustainable water demands these facilities would impose on Queensland's water security and farming communities.

Dave Copeman, Director, Queensland Conservation Council said:

This report makes it crystal clear how much of a threat nuclear poses to Queensland’s agricultural and drinking water.

Peter Dutton needs to come clean with Queenslanders about whether waste water from a Tarong nuclear power station will be discharged into Boondoomba and Wivenhoe Dams, and if so what the impact to our food security and drinking water will be.

Nuclear power's insatiable thirst for water could turn our water problem from bad to disastrous. Imagine the strain on our water supply just to keep the lights on during an emergency. This is not a viable solution for our energy needs.

This report also indicates that high level waste won’t be "something the size of a coke can" as Peter Dutton claimed, but instead three cubic metres of high level waste every year, and much more medium and low level waste.

High level nuclear waste is radioactive for 100,000 years. South Australia estimated that the total cost of long term geological storage would cost $145.3 billion for the first 120 years.

There is still not a long term geological storage site anywhere worldwide, and so we can only assume waste would be stored at Tarong for decades, poisoning the land against the will of Traditional Owners.

It's time to prioritise smarter, sustainable energy choices that don't drain our vital water resources. We have better options in deployment now, such as solar and wind power, which require far less water and provide safer, more reliable energy.

Regional towns under threat of emergency evacuation if nuclear power comes to Queensland

Map showing the 20km evacuation zone and 80km agricultural impact zone around the proposed Tarong nuclear power station

If Australia applied the safety zone from Finland around nuclear power stations, the following list of localities will be within the 20km evacuation zones of Tarong nuclear power station, meaning the following localities will need to be prepared to evacuate:

• Goodger – population 176
• Ellesmere – population 334
• Maidenwell – population 227
• Yarraman – population 1127
• Blackbutt – population 799
• Taromeo – population 373
• Nanango – population 3679
• Thangool – population 685
• Biloela – population 5692
• Callide – population 80
• Dumgaree – population 63

If we use US rules on safety limits around nuclear sites, the agricultural impact zones from a nuclear power station are four times as far, at 80km, and from Tarong Power station would reach out to Oakey, Dalby, Jandowae, Imbil and the outskirts of Toowoomba.

"Peter Dutton needs to explain whether we will apply Finnish or US Safety limits, and what impact that will have on locals, their house prices and our food supply," said Dave Copeman.

Share Tweet Email