'Cancer factories' or 'only way to go': nuclear divide in Hunter communities

Coalition Leader Peter Dutton on Wednesday named land near the former Liddell power station at Muswellbrook as one of seven possible sites for a nuclear plant.

While some people in the Hunter believe nuclear power to be superior and ultimately cheaper than renewables, others point to enormous upfront costs and the lead time needed to build a plant.

Significantly, the Newcastle Herald has found support for nuclear is stronger in communities closer to the proposed site adjacent to the former Liddell power station at Muswellbrook.

The Herald spoke to several people who had strong opinions on the proposal for nuclear in the region.

Greg Smith said nuclear energy was the hot topic in his bar.

"Farmers, miners and small business people are all talking about it," he said.

"Most of my customers are of the same view as me. They are against renewable energy, wind turbines and that sort of stuff.

"The consensus in this hotel is that [nuclear] ... it's the only commonsense way to go for the future."

He said it made no sense not to use Australia's uranium deposits for domestic energy production.

"We could run our own reactors and still have enough to export. I just think it's a no-brainer," he said.

Ian Napier said a nuclear reactor would have fewer negative environmental impacts on the Hunter wine industry than coalmining.

"To me, it's a step that should have been taken 15 to 20 years ago," he said.

"It would have meant we weren't in this catch-22 situation with our energy resources.

"Coalmining has done enormous damage to Muswellbrook, the health of the people who live there and its ability to attract people.

"I imagine a normally functioning nuclear reactor would be a much better option."

Councillor Steve Reynolds said the council's first priority would be to ensure the best interests of the shire community remained at the forefront of any proposal.

"We are a region that boasts a highly skilled workforce and a wealth of assets, and we want the best outcomes as the economy of our shire changes," he said.

"Council's primary consideration in relation to Mr Dutton's announcement is to ensure that the Muswellbrook community is appropriately and respectfully consulted so well-informed decisions can be made.

"It is critical that federal and state governments work productively together to ensure the best possible outcomes for our nation with regard to the critically important matter of dependable, sustainable and affordable energy."

Dave Layzell said he supported lifting Australia's ban on nuclear energy, however, he did not support the federal Coalition's plan to locate a reactor at Liddell.

"Whilst I do support an investigation of nuclear as part of our energy mix, it should be viable here just as it seems to be anywhere in the world," he said.

"I fully support removing the nuclear power ban.

"However, I do not support the location nominated by the federal Coalition.

"It is far too soon to have a realistic discussion with the people of the Hunter. So I will not support a facility in the Hunter unless we better understand the local benefits."

Justin Page said the Hunter did not want or need the Coalition's "nuclear fantasy".

"Nuclear reactors cost too much, would take decades to build and produce toxic waste," he said.

"This is a distraction from the energy transformation already under way. The Hunter has already attracted investment in onshore and offshore wind, solar and hydrogen. Our industries are already transitioning to renewable energy. This is the right path forward for our region."

Helen Caldicott said nuclear power plants were "cancer factories" that could never be made safe.

"They're always at risk of meltdown," said Dr Caldicott, who once lived at Matcham on the Central Coast.

She said a meltdown at a Muswellbrook plant could spread radiation as far as Western Australia.

"It depends where the wind's blowing," she said.

Dr Caldicott, author of Nuclear Madness, said the forces pushing nuclear power in Australia were "nuts".

"Talk about out of touch with reality," she said. "Nuclear reactors continually emit tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen. It's carcinogenic."

A meltdown would present "severe risk", she said.

"We know over a million people have died in Europe from Chernobyl [the 1986 nuclear disaster]," she said.

"The Japanese government hasn't collected data on deaths and disease from Fukushima [the 2011 nuclear disaster], except for thyroid cancer in children under 18.

"And that's increased."

She said the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 caused an "increased incidence of malignancy among the exposed population".

She added that nuclear reactors contributed to "a huge amount of CO2".

"That's from mining and milling uranium, to building the plants' massive concrete structures, to storing the waste for a million years," she said.

"When Dutton says it's clean, he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Simon Holmes a Court sent a tweet on Wednesday, titled "18 questions every diligent journalist should be seeking answers to".

He asked "how will Dutton remove the [nuclear] ban?"

"The Coalition would require control of the Senate to repeal the ban, which is embedded in two acts.

"The Coalition hasn't controlled the Senate since 2004-2007."

He also asked "how would a Dutton government secure the sites?"

"Dutton has been clear they'll be built on sites of existing coal power stations," he said.

"The Commonwealth doesn't own any coal power stations and many former coal power stations are now (or will soon be) hosting large battery or solar farms."

He also asked "who will be the project proponent?"

"Industry has no interest in building large reactors. The first large reactor is likely to cost more than the combined valuation of Origin Energy, AGL and Energy Australia.

"Realistically, only the government is placed to run such a project."