Stockleigh has been named as a “possible” location to house two nuclear power plants by one of the country’s leading nuclear advocacy groups.
However, government officials say they won’t let it happen.
Nuclear for Climate Australia has established a list of “probable” locations for nuclear power plants, which involves converting decommissioned coal-fired power stations into reactors.
The group also has a list of “possible” locations for power plants, which are close to water sources, should nuclear energy become legal and adopted.
Founder Robert Parker, who is also an advisor to the federal coalition, said the recommendations were not “dedicated locations”.
“There’s no political agenda – I put together the list as much as anything for people to have a discussion about small modular reactors in Australia,” Mr Parker said.
He said Queensland “lends itself to having small nuclear power plants up and down the state” because of its “decentralised nature”.
“And where the major load is, down around the south-eastern corner, you need to look at where you would place [the power plants],” he said.
“The region around Stockleigh is on the Logan River – there’s quite a large piece of land there – and there are some good transmission lines going through that site.
“That’s really what underpins it – transmission, proximity to population and cooling facilities.”
Mr Parker suggested two 300mw nuclear power plants, each capable of providing power to around 275,000 people, be built at Stockleigh.
“They’re building four of those on Lake Ontario, down the road from Toronto, Canada, and these plants are passively cooled, small and about the size of a Bunnings store,” he said.
“They don’t have any cooling towers, they’re low profile, and individually occupy the area of 2.7ha- they’re quite a compact unit.”
But for any of this to happen, Mr Parker conceded, the Australian government would need to withdraw the “prohibition” on nuclear power.
“The biggest problem we’ve got is with the state energy ministers coming out with what I believe to be uneconomic, long-term energy plans that will not reach a carbon-zero future,” he said.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Economy Jobs, and Springwood MP, Mick de Brenni, said he wouldn’t support nuclear.
“My job is to help families in the electorate of Springwood and all Queenslanders to make ends meet, which is why I won’t support nuclear,” he said.
“It is far more expensive and will take decades to build, plus it’s just dangerous.
“Logan locals tell me they want cheaper energy – but nuclear is five times the price of solar, and almost four and a half times the price of wind.
“Under the opposition’s plan for nuclear, the climate will keep warming to the point it’s irreversible and catastrophic.”
He said climate change was occurring, “whether we like it or not”.
“… and we need to cut emissions to stop it before irrevocable damage is done,” Mr de Brenni said.
“That means we have to act now, not in 15 or 20 years.
“After wild weather and floods ripped parts of Logan to shreds, it’s clear we have to act on climate change now and do it in a financially responsible way.”
Waterford MP and health minister Shannon Fentiman said she wouldn’t let a nuclear plant be built in Logan.
“The LNP’s nuclear reactor plan would mean more emissions, more warming, and it’s more expensive,” she said.
“We can’t afford to let them do it.
“Our government is working to bring down people’s energy bills and nuclear would cost more than five times the price of solar.
Mr Parker admitted nuclear would cost more to set up, but argued it was far cheaper than renewables in the long run.
“We are in a lot of trouble in terms of costs,” he said.
“We don’t have to go completely nuclear, but we need a system that uses nuclear with renewables in an optimum energy mix so that we don’t get stuck with the accelerating impacts of wind droughts which are compounded with low solar output in the winter.”
