Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Small modular reactors have promise. But we found they’re unlikely to help Australia hit net zero by 2050

News Feed
Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Golden Sikorka/ShutterstockAustralia’s clean energy transition is already underway, driven by solar, wind, batteries and new transmission lines. But what about nuclear? Opposition leader Peter Dutton last month committed to building nuclear reactors on the site of retired coal plants – triggering intense debate over whether this older low-carbon power source is viable in Australia due to cost and long timeframes. Dutton proposed building a mix of traditional large nuclear plants alongside small modular reactors (SMRs). Over the last decade, there’s been growing interest in SMRs. These reactor designs are meant to tackle known problems with traditional large reactor designs, namely cost, perceived safety and lengthy build times. Are SMRs ready? Experts from the the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering have done a deep dive on the state of the technology and market considerations in a new report, summing up the state of the technology. What’s the answer? SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s. That’s too late to help with the push to net zero by 2050. As our report notes, the “least risky option” would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas. But once the technology is proven, they could be used for specific circumstances, such as powering energy-intensive manufacturing and refining. A mock-up of the Rolls Royce SMR design. Rolls Royce, CC BY What is a small modular reactor? Small modular reactors are a range of new nuclear reactors currently being designed. SMRs involve standardised components produced in factories and assembled on-site. As the name suggests, they are smaller than traditional large nuclear reactors, which have to be custom built. They are also, in theory, cheaper and safer. Traditional nuclear plants can generate between 1 and 8 gigawatts of power. By contrast, each SMR would generate 50-300 megawatts. Between three to 20 SMRs would be needed to provide the amount of power produced by a traditional nuclear power station. Many designs incorporate in-built passive cooling in case of power failure to avoid the risk of meltdown. They could be daisy-chained – or connected up – with multiple reactors cores inside a single power plant. They are currently at the design stage in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea, with no models yet operating in OECD countries. Publicly available information about SMRs being developed elsewhere is limited. What’s behind this interest? Key factors include: very low carbon emissions ability to support intermittent power sources such as renewables potential for easier and faster construction than conventional nuclear ability to provide heat as a key input to industrial processes. At present, we know of 14 different designs at a comparatively advanced stage of development globally. That means the designs are undergoing detailed simulations, evaluation of components and creation of small-scale replicas for testing and evaluation. None have yet been licensed for construction in any OECD countries. How would SMRs stack up against other power sources? Given the fact SMRs are still a while away from prime time, we estimate the earliest Australia could have one built would be during the 2040s. At this time, Australia’s grid is projected to have 6 gigawatts of renewables added every year, along with a large amount of dispatchable energy in the form of battery storage, and a small amount of new gas generation. Given renewables and battery technologies get cheaper every year, expensive new sources of power may well struggle to break in. Because SMRs are still at the design stage, we have no operating data to assess the cost of their electricity. Even so, CSIRO’s latest GenCost study illustrates the scale of the challenge. In 2030, the agency forecasts the cost of power from solar and wind, firmed by storage to firm capacity, to be A$89-125 per megawatt hour. By contrast, GenCost estimates large-scale nuclear would cost $141-233 a megawatt hour – and $230-382 for SMRs. SMRs could conceivably contribute to the energy grid in the future, providing some steady power to energy-intensive industries. As the technology matures and proves itself in testing, these reactors may represent a lower-cost, shorter build-time, smaller terrestrial footprint alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants. But they won’t replace our need for a major expansion of renewable energy, and not in the next 20 years. A market for SMRs? This new report on SMRs in Australia makes clear that a mature SMR market will not emerge in time for Australia to meet its international commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The barriers to adoption in Australia are substantial. Significantly, there are bans on nuclear power federally and in many states. These would need to be overturned before any work could commence. A regulator would need to be created to oversee all aspects of the delivery, safety, workforce needs and environmental impact of any SMR installation. We’d need to train an appropriately skilled workforce. Most importantly, nuclear energy (large or small) is a divisive issue. Australia would need to secure the social licence to operate nuclear. It would also be financially and technically risky for Australia to pursue SMRs before a mature global market for the technology emerges. Proponents expect SMRs will gradually drop in price as the technology matures, expertise develops and economies of scale take root. This will take time – there’s no shortcut. First, developers would have to progress designs and acquire licenses, funding and sites for construction. In Australia, this would require building a nuclear energy regulator and selecting locations with community support. Second, developers would build a full-scale working prototype. SMR developers worldwide have indicated this is around ten years away. Third, developers would have to convert the knowledge gained from full-scale prototypes into an accepted commercial package. This could take three to five years after prototyping. Finally, developers would become vendors and compete for contracts to build SMRs, creating a global market. We expect the first commercial releases of SMRs between the late 2030s and mid 2040s. There are many questions still to be answered for SMRs to be seriously considered as part of the power mix of the future: cost, construction time, waste disposal, water use, integration with the grid, First Nations sovereignty, skills and workforce and more. But companies around the world are making progress. The next ten years will bring a much stronger evidence base on whether SMRs could be useful in powering Australia in the future. Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in 1983 for a project on Australia's energy needs to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.As CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Kylie Walker receives funding from the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the Department of Education.

Small modular reactors promise to make nuclear power cheaper and safer. But our new report shows they’re still a long way off.

Golden Sikorka/Shutterstock

Australia’s clean energy transition is already underway, driven by solar, wind, batteries and new transmission lines.

But what about nuclear? Opposition leader Peter Dutton last month committed to building nuclear reactors on the site of retired coal plants – triggering intense debate over whether this older low-carbon power source is viable in Australia due to cost and long timeframes. Dutton proposed building a mix of traditional large nuclear plants alongside small modular reactors (SMRs).

Over the last decade, there’s been growing interest in SMRs. These reactor designs are meant to tackle known problems with traditional large reactor designs, namely cost, perceived safety and lengthy build times.

Are SMRs ready? Experts from the the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering have done a deep dive on the state of the technology and market considerations in a new report, summing up the state of the technology.

What’s the answer? SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s. That’s too late to help with the push to net zero by 2050.

As our report notes, the “least risky option” would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas. But once the technology is proven, they could be used for specific circumstances, such as powering energy-intensive manufacturing and refining.

small modular reactor mock up
A mock-up of the Rolls Royce SMR design. Rolls Royce, CC BY

What is a small modular reactor?

Small modular reactors are a range of new nuclear reactors currently being designed.

SMRs involve standardised components produced in factories and assembled on-site. As the name suggests, they are smaller than traditional large nuclear reactors, which have to be custom built. They are also, in theory, cheaper and safer.

Traditional nuclear plants can generate between 1 and 8 gigawatts of power. By contrast, each SMR would generate 50-300 megawatts.

Between three to 20 SMRs would be needed to provide the amount of power produced by a traditional nuclear power station. Many designs incorporate in-built passive cooling in case of power failure to avoid the risk of meltdown. They could be daisy-chained – or connected up – with multiple reactors cores inside a single power plant.

They are currently at the design stage in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea, with no models yet operating in OECD countries. Publicly available information about SMRs being developed elsewhere is limited.

What’s behind this interest? Key factors include:

  • very low carbon emissions
  • ability to support intermittent power sources such as renewables
  • potential for easier and faster construction than conventional nuclear
  • ability to provide heat as a key input to industrial processes.

At present, we know of 14 different designs at a comparatively advanced stage of development globally. That means the designs are undergoing detailed simulations, evaluation of components and creation of small-scale replicas for testing and evaluation. None have yet been licensed for construction in any OECD countries.

How would SMRs stack up against other power sources?

Given the fact SMRs are still a while away from prime time, we estimate the earliest Australia could have one built would be during the 2040s.

At this time, Australia’s grid is projected to have 6 gigawatts of renewables added every year, along with a large amount of dispatchable energy in the form of battery storage, and a small amount of new gas generation.

Given renewables and battery technologies get cheaper every year, expensive new sources of power may well struggle to break in.

Because SMRs are still at the design stage, we have no operating data to assess the cost of their electricity.

Even so, CSIRO’s latest GenCost study illustrates the scale of the challenge. In 2030, the agency forecasts the cost of power from solar and wind, firmed by storage to firm capacity, to be A$89-125 per megawatt hour. By contrast, GenCost estimates large-scale nuclear would cost $141-233 a megawatt hour – and $230-382 for SMRs.

SMRs could conceivably contribute to the energy grid in the future, providing some steady power to energy-intensive industries. As the technology matures and proves itself in testing, these reactors may represent a lower-cost, shorter build-time, smaller terrestrial footprint alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants.

But they won’t replace our need for a major expansion of renewable energy, and not in the next 20 years.

A market for SMRs?

This new report on SMRs in Australia makes clear that a mature SMR market will not emerge in time for Australia to meet its international commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

The barriers to adoption in Australia are substantial. Significantly, there are bans on nuclear power federally and in many states. These would need to be overturned before any work could commence.

A regulator would need to be created to oversee all aspects of the delivery, safety, workforce needs and environmental impact of any SMR installation. We’d need to train an appropriately skilled workforce.

Most importantly, nuclear energy (large or small) is a divisive issue. Australia would need to secure the social licence to operate nuclear.

It would also be financially and technically risky for Australia to pursue SMRs before a mature global market for the technology emerges.

Proponents expect SMRs will gradually drop in price as the technology matures, expertise develops and economies of scale take root.

This will take time – there’s no shortcut.

First, developers would have to progress designs and acquire licenses, funding and sites for construction. In Australia, this would require building a nuclear energy regulator and selecting locations with community support.

Second, developers would build a full-scale working prototype. SMR developers worldwide have indicated this is around ten years away.

Third, developers would have to convert the knowledge gained from full-scale prototypes into an accepted commercial package. This could take three to five years after prototyping.

Finally, developers would become vendors and compete for contracts to build SMRs, creating a global market. We expect the first commercial releases of SMRs between the late 2030s and mid 2040s.

There are many questions still to be answered for SMRs to be seriously considered as part of the power mix of the future: cost, construction time, waste disposal, water use, integration with the grid, First Nations sovereignty, skills and workforce and more. But companies around the world are making progress.

The next ten years will bring a much stronger evidence base on whether SMRs could be useful in powering Australia in the future.

The Conversation

Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in 1983 for a project on Australia's energy needs to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

As CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Kylie Walker receives funding from the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the Department of Education.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Iguanas Are Native, Not Invasive, on This Mexican Island, DNA Study Suggests, Rewriting Conservation Ideas

The spiny-tailed iguanas of Clarion Island predate human presence in the Americas by tens of thousands of years, researchers say

Iguanas Are Native, Not Invasive, on This Mexican Island, DNA Study Suggests, Rewriting Conservation Ideas The spiny-tailed iguanas of Clarion Island predate human presence in the Americas by tens of thousands of years, researchers say Sara Hashemi - Daily Correspondent November 7, 2025 1:39 p.m. A spiny-tailed iguana on Clarion Island Daniel Mulcahy The spiny-tailed iguanas on Mexico’s Clarion Island were long thought to have been introduced by humans. But a study published this October in the journal Ecology and Evolution turns that idea on its head. It suggests the lizards predate humans in the Americas—and that they are an endemic, not invasive, species. Clarion Island, the oldest on the remote Revillagigedo Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean, was once covered in prickly-pear cactuses that made it almost impenetrable without a machete, per a statement. That all changed in the 1970s, when the Mexican military set up a base on the island and introduced sheep, pigs and rabbits that ate most of the vegetation. Biologists also assumed the iguanas were introduced by military personnel, because previous surveys of the island had not recorded them. “It was all speculative that they were introduced—no one ever tested it,” Daniel Mulcahy, an evolutionary biologist at the Museum of Natural History in Berlin and the study’s first author, tells the New York Times. Fun fact: Clarion’s unique wildlife Iguanas aren’t the only animals endemic to Clarion Island: It’s home to unique birds, snakes and lizards. It also was once the habitat of the Townsend’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis), a rare seabird that had its nesting sites decimated by the island’s invasive mammals. The bird is now considered “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with just 250 to 999 thought to still live in the wild worldwide, according to a 2018 assessment. Mulcahy tells the outlet that he collected DNA from the iguanas while on a Smithsonian Institution research trip to study snakes more than a decade ago. The DNA materials from the island iguanas didn’t seem to match those of iguanas from the mainland. But he didn’t think to publish those results until a colleague told him the Mexican government planned to exterminate the lizards under the belief that they’re invasive and harming the local ecosystem, he tells the Times. The result was his new study, which compared the mitochondrial DNA of island and mainland iguanas and found that they are genetically distinct from each other. The researchers’ evolutionary analysis found that the two populations likely diverged some 425,000 years ago. Humans, on the other hand, only crossed the Bering Land Bridge to the Americas roughly 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. As such, the island’s iguanas “substantially predate not only the establishment of the navy base on Clarion Island but also human colonization of the Americas,” the researchers write in the paper. This finding, they add, suggests the iguanas dispersed naturally over water—likely on a mat of floating vegetation—to make their way to the island. But that raises another question: How did the Clarion iguanas go unnoticed for so long? The study authors suggest the reptiles probably remained hidden because of the dense vegetation that once covered the island, allowing the skittish animals to hide. The iguanas tend to run away from humans, hiding in rock crevices or burrows. “We posit that the iguanas on Clarion Island were historically elusive and that recent alterations to the vegetation have made them more conspicuous,” they write in the study. Though pigs and sheep have now been eradicated from the island, they write, rabbits remain. So does the environmental destruction wrought by the invasive species, which “significantly altered” the island’s native plants. “This type of work is fundamental to conserving some of the world’s most unique and imperiled diversity,” Rayna Bell, an evolutionary biologist at the California Academy of Sciences who was not involved with the study, tells the New York Times. The study could have important implications for future conservation plans on the island, now that iguanas can be considered native wildlife. The researchers hope their findings bring an end to Clarion Island’s ongoing iguana eradication efforts. “This research fundamentally changes how we view Clarion’s ecology,” the team says to Rob Hutchins at Oceanographic magazine. “The spiny-tailed iguana is not an invader—it’s a survivor.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Conservation
Animals
Nature

Scientific consortium hasn’t given up on giant telescope in Hawaii despite protests, increased costs

Construction on the Thirty Meter Telescope stalled at a different site on Mauna Kea in 2019 amid protests. Opponents said the land is sacred to Native Hawaiians.

Despite some daunting setbacks, executives with the Thirty Meter Telescope aren’t giving up on their plans to build it on Mauna Kea, and are investigating the possibility the observatory could be constructed on a site where an old telescope was decommissioned and torn down.Gov. Josh Green and the entire Hawaii congressional delegation signed a letter last month promising to work with state officials to establish a permitting process for construction on the sites of decommissioned telescopes on Mauna Kea.That letter to the chair and co-chair of the board of directors of the Thirty Meter Telescope International Observatory acknowledges “your commitment to addressing the Hawaii community’s request for a possible relocation to a disturbed site” on the mountain.Construction of the telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea stalled in 2019 as protests erupted on the mountain, attracting thousands of project opponents from across the state. Those protests became a powerful rallying point for Hawaiians, including some who consider the mountain to be sacred land.Protesters opposed to the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope gather outside the Hawaii Legislature in Honolulu, April 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Cathy Bussewitz, File)APThe protests ended with the onset of the pandemic in 2020, and construction has remained in limbo ever since. Years of delays caused the total estimated cost of the TMT project to grow to $3 billion, according to TMT Project Manager Fengchuan Liu, and TMT now has “a pretty big funding gap.”The funding shortfall for TMT at this point is about $1 billion, he said, but that could change depending on when construction would begin.Money and other challengesThe National Science Foundation announced earlier this year it had opted to fund a different large telescope project in Chile, a decision that Liu called “a major challenge.” But TMT planners are working on a solution to that problem.TMT backers have approached Congress for funding via the NSF, and Liu said in an interview Monday the Senate draft of the 2026 federal budget includes language explicitly supportive of funding for TMT as well as the Extremely Large Telescope being built in Chile.The House draft supports the development of large telescopes, but does not mention TMT specifically.“We’re working through that, we have a lot of support from the Hawaii congressional delegation, we very much appreciate it, and the governor as well, but it’s hard to predict in these days how the congressional appropriation process will work out,” Liu said.U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, who represents rural Oahu and the neighbor islands, said in an interview Monday that she and other lawmakers plan to send a bipartisan letter to leadership of the House Appropriations Committee to ask for an amendment to the House draft of the budget bill to include language similar to the Senate version.She said she believes the letter signed by Green and the Hawaii congressional delegation was intended to demonstrate a unified position in support of TMT.Tokuda acknowledged some TMT critics continue to oppose the project, and said finding a balance between culture and the advancement of science “will take courage — community and political courage as well. This is something that can be a huge benefit to Hawaii island, to Native Hawaiians, to many.”Green said in the letter that “we look forward to working with TIO and the broader community to honor the shared responsibility for stewardship of Maunakea and the success of this project.”Makana McClellan, director of communications for Green, said the governor “will stand on his letter,” and declined further comment.Sen. Brian Schatz also said through a spokesman that he would not make any further comment, and Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Ed Case did not respond to requests for comment Monday.Pua Case, who describes herself as a protector of Mauna Kea, said the letter is another example of political leaders disregarding TMT’s opponents.She said they have been collecting signatures of people opposed to construction on Mauna Kea for more than a decade, and now have nearly 500,000 signatures.That petition demonstrates the opponents of the project “are more than some Hawaiians and our allies,” she said. “We are many, many more than that, and we must safeguard our sacred lands and Mauna Kea and our Hawaii.”“Throughout the years, Native Hawaiians, communities throughout Hawaii and around the world have stood, sacrificed and worked together to safeguard our sacred lands including Mauna Kea and our Hawaii,” she said. “We have remained unified for a mauna that brought us together in ways that we never thought possible.”The Thirty Meter Telescope has been in the planning stages for years and has a state conservation district use permit authorizing the project to move forward, but opponents have filed challenges in an attempt to invalidate it.What ‘disturbed’ site?The idea that new facilities could be built on the site of a decommissioned telescope on Mauna Kea was included in Act 255, which state legislators passed in 2022. That law also established the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority as the sole authority for the management of lands on Mauna Kea.The law prioritized “the reuse of footprints of observatories that are scheduled for decommissioning, or have been decommissioned, as sites for facilities or improvements over the use of undeveloped lands for such purposes.”The Caltech Submillimeter Observatory and the University of Hawaii Hilo Hoku Kea Observatory have been decommissioned and removed from Mauna Kea, but nothing else has been built on the sites where those telescopes once stood.Green promised in the letter that his administration will work with the Mauna Kea oversight authority and the university “to establish a clear and transparent procedure for obtaining the necessary permits associated with a decommissioned site.”Longtime TMT opponent E. Kalani Flores said there are no decommissioned telescope sites on Mauna Kea large enough to accommodate the Thirty Meter Telescope.“The size and scope of the TMT is so huge and massive that it wouldn’t even fit on that site,” he said of the Caltech telescope site. “The question is, what disturbed site is there?”Flores also noted the use of NSF funding for the TMT project would trigger a requirement for a federal environmental impact statement and a cultural consultation, “so we’re talking about years away from it ever happening.”“What we’re seeing now is it appears that the governor and the congressional members are trying to make decisions excluding any input from Native Hawaiians in particular, and we have concerns in that regard, of course,” he said.___This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Conservation
Culture
Mountains

Scientific Consortium Hasn't Given up on Giant Telescope in Hawaii Despite Protests, Increased Costs

Despite some daunting setbacks, an international consortium isn't giving up on plans to built a giant telescope on the highest peak in Hawaii

Despite some daunting setbacks, executives with the Thirty Meter Telescope aren’t giving up on their plans to build it on Mauna Kea, and are investigating the possibility the observatory could be constructed on a site where an old telescope was decommissioned and torn down.Gov. Josh Green and the entire Hawaii congressional delegation signed a letter last month promising to work with state officials to establish a permitting process for construction on the sites of decommissioned telescopes on Mauna Kea.That letter to the chair and co-chair of the board of directors of the Thirty Meter Telescope International Observatory acknowledges “your commitment to addressing the Hawaii community’s request for a possible relocation to a disturbed site” on the mountain.Construction of the telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea stalled in 2019 as protests erupted on the mountain, attracting thousands of project opponents from across the state. Those protests became a powerful rallying point for Hawaiians, including some who consider the mountain to be sacred land.The protests ended with the onset of the pandemic in 2020, and construction has remained in limbo ever since. Years of delays caused the total estimated cost of the TMT project to grow to $3 billion, according to TMT Project Manager Fengchuan Liu, and TMT now has “a pretty big funding gap.”The funding shortfall for TMT at this point is about $1 billion, he said, but that could change depending on when construction would begin. Money And Other Challenges TMT backers have approached Congress for funding via the NSF, and Liu said in an interview Monday the Senate draft of the 2026 federal budget includes language explicitly supportive of funding for TMT as well as the Extremely Large Telescope being built in Chile.The House draft supports the development of large telescopes, but does not mention TMT specifically.“We’re working through that, we have a lot of support from the Hawaii congressional delegation, we very much appreciate it, and the governor as well, but it’s hard to predict in these days how the congressional appropriation process will work out,” Liu said.U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, who represents rural Oahu and the neighbor islands, said in an interview Monday that she and other lawmakers plan to send a bipartisan letter to leadership of the House Appropriations Committee to ask for an amendment to the House draft of the budget bill to include language similar to the Senate version.She said she believes the letter signed by Green and the Hawaii congressional delegation was intended to demonstrate a unified position in support of TMT.Tokuda acknowledged some TMT critics continue to oppose the project, and said finding a balance between culture and the advancement of science “will take courage — community and political courage as well. This is something that can be a huge benefit to Hawaii island, to Native Hawaiians, to many.”Green said in the letter that “we look forward to working with TIO and the broader community to honor the shared responsibility for stewardship of Maunakea and the success of this project.”Makana McClellan, director of communications for Green, said the governor “will stand on his letter,” and declined further comment.Sen. Brian Schatz also said through a spokesman that he would not make any further comment, and Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Ed Case did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Pua Case, who describes herself as a protector of Mauna Kea, said the letter is another example of political leaders disregarding TMT’s opponents.She said they have been collecting signatures of people opposed to construction on Mauna Kea for more than a decade, and now have nearly 500,000 signatures.That petition demonstrates the opponents of the project “are more than some Hawaiians and our allies,” she said. “We are many, many more than that, and we must safeguard our sacred lands and Mauna Kea and our Hawaii.”“Throughout the years, Native Hawaiians, communities throughout Hawaii and around the world have stood, sacrificed and worked together to safeguard our sacred lands including Mauna Kea and our Hawaii,” she said. “We have remained unified for a mauna that brought us together in ways that we never thought possible.”The Thirty Meter Telescope has been in the planning stages for years and has a state conservation district use permit authorizing the project to move forward, but opponents have filed challenges in an attempt to invalidate it.The idea that new facilities could be built on the site of a decommissioned telescope on Mauna Kea was included in Act 255, which state legislators passed in 2022. That law also established the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority as the sole authority for the management of lands on Mauna Kea.The law prioritized “the reuse of footprints of observatories that are scheduled for decommissioning, or have been decommissioned, as sites for facilities or improvements over the use of undeveloped lands for such purposes.”Green promised in the letter that his administration will work with the Mauna Kea oversight authority and the university “to establish a clear and transparent procedure for obtaining the necessary permits associated with a decommissioned site.”Longtime TMT opponent E. Kalani Flores said there are no decommissioned telescope sites on Mauna Kea large enough to accommodate the Thirty Meter Telescope.“The size and scope of the TMT is so huge and massive that it wouldn’t even fit on that site,” he said of the Caltech telescope site. “The question is, what disturbed site is there?”Flores also noted the use of NSF funding for the TMT project would trigger a requirement for a federal environmental impact statement and a cultural consultation, “so we’re talking about years away from it ever happening.”“What we’re seeing now is it appears that the governor and the congressional members are trying to make decisions excluding any input from Native Hawaiians in particular, and we have concerns in that regard, of course,” he said.This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Conservation
Culture
Mountains

‘Serious gaps’ in Labor’s environment laws undermine attempt to fix broken system, integrity experts say

Pressure mounts on federal government to rethink controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for projectsFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastPolitical integrity experts have raised concerns about Labor’s proposed new nature laws, including a contentious new “national interest” exemption, as pressure mounts on the Albanese government to rethink major parts of the reform.As debate on legislation to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act resumes in the lower house on Tuesday, the Centre for Public Integrity has identified several “integrity risks” that threaten to undermine attempts to fix the broken system. Continue reading...

Political integrity experts have raised concerns about Labor’s proposed new nature laws, including a contentious new “national interest” exemption, as pressure mounts on the Albanese government to rethink major parts of the reform.As debate on legislation to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act resumes in the lower house on Tuesday, the Centre for Public Integrity has identified several “integrity risks” that threaten to undermine attempts to fix the broken system.The thinktank has joined a chorus of critics – including environment groups, the former Treasury secretary Ken Henry and Labor MP Ed Husic – in raising alarm about a new exemption that would allow the minister to approve a project in breach of new nature laws if it was in the “national interest”.While the environment minister, Murray Watt, has insisted the power was designed for projects linked to defence, security or national emergencies, he hasn’t been able to rule out the possibility it could be used for other applications – including fossil fuel developments – because of the discretionary nature of the exemption.“Despite the claims to a limited application, the centre holds grave concerns about the scope, transparency, and accountability of the exercise of the discretion,” the thinktank wrote in an analysis of the bill published on Tuesday.The thinktank was also concerned about the apparent lack of independence of the government’s proposed independent environment protection agency.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailUnder Labor’s model, the regulator would exercise some functions at arm’s length of the government, including policing of nature laws, but the minister would keep the power to approve projects.The retention of ministerial decision-making power was a key demand of the Coalition and industry groups, but has been criticised by environmentalists.The centre’s report said it was “highly unusual” for an independent regulator to cede such “significant powers” to a minister.“Public confidence and trust in environmental decision making would be better served if responsibility lay with an independent body, free from political influence and less susceptible to vested interests,” the report said.The centre’s head of research, Gabrielle Appleby, said the government’s bill was flawed.“Environmental decision making is especially prone to capture by vested interests – that’s why integrity safeguards must be strong,” she said.“Yet these bills leave serious gaps: the new regulator lacks independence and appropriate powers, and the minister retains sweeping powers to sidestep environmental protections. The government has the solutions in front of it – it just needs the will to close these loopholes and build a system Australians can trust.”The thinktank criticised the government for developing the legislation largely behind “closed doors” in consultation with select stakeholders.It also raised concerns about the process for creating new national environment standards, which were the main recommendation of the Samuel review that inspired the reforms.While the bill establishes a power for the minister to make, vary, or revoke new green rules, the standards themselves aren’t included in the legislation.The thinktank said the standards should have been detailed in the legislation and subject to parliamentary approval. The minister is planning to consult on the design of the standards before their introduction, starting with those applying to matters of national environmental significance and offsets.Labor’s grassroots environment action group is now lobbying the government to make two amendments to the bill, which it ultimately wants passed after years of internal campaigning to fix the EPBC Act.The first would remove or limit the “national interest” carveout by giving parliament the power to disallow the decision through a majority vote in either house.The second would abolish a “continuous use” exemption that allows historically legal agricultural land clearing, particularly in Queensland, to continue without the need for federal approval or oversight.This exemption is also used by state governments to justify shark netting programs that pose a threat to endangered whales.The national secretary of Labor Environment Action Network, Janaline Oh, said there was a strong case for national interest exemption that could be used in national emergencies, but there was a significant risk that a minister could abuse that power and the power should be limited.“In the case where a project is of such overriding national interest that it can be allowed to have even unacceptable impacts, the government should go through an additional process of parliamentary scrutiny,” she said.

Conservation
Government
Nature

Nigeria to Impose More Stringent Penalties on Wildlife Traffickers

By Isaac AnyaoguLAGOS (Reuters) -Nigeria will impose fines of up to 12 million naira ($8,200) and jail terms of up to 10 years on traffickers of...

LAGOS (Reuters) -Nigeria will impose fines of up to 12 million naira ($8,200) and jail terms of up to 10 years on traffickers of ivory, pangolin scales and other wildlife in a sweeping new bill passed by its Senate on Tuesday.Conservation groups say the law could help curb organised crime networks which have made Nigeria a major hub for illegal wildlife trade. The networks have been linked with more than 30 tonnes of ivory since 2015 and over half of global pangolin scale trafficking between 2016 and 2019.The Endangered Species Conservation and Protection Bill, passed by the lower parliament in May, updates decades-old laws that allow offenders to spend three months to five years in jail or pay fines as low as 100,000 naira ($68) for trafficking.The Bill grants the Nigerian Customs investigators powers to track financial flows, and search and detain aircraft and vessels transporting prohibited wildlife. Judges will be allowed to fast-track cases and seize assets.The law, which also prohibits pollution of wildlife habitat and the eating of endangered wildlife, aligns Nigeria with global treaties and enables extradition of offenders."This is a huge win for Nigeria and shows, without any doubt, that we remain committed to stamping out wildlife trafficking and protecting our unique fauna and flora," said Terseer Ugbor, the lawmaker who sponsored the bill.Environmental groups welcomed the move, saying it will help protect wildlife."For too long, traffickers have used Nigeria as a transit country for the illegal wildlife trade, bringing endangered wildlife from all over Africa through our porous borders, ports and airports to export them illegally to Europe and Asia," said Tunde Morakinyo, Executive Director, Africa Nature Investors Foundation (ANI).They urged swift presidential assent before the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a UN-affiliated international agreement summit in Uzbekistan in November.(Reporting by Isaac Anyaogu, editing by Ed Osmond)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Conservation
Nature
Pollution

Suggested Viewing

Igniting Change: Maui Brush Fires

This short film, produced by three high school students in our Huliau Environmental Filmmaking Club, explores the causes and impacts of brush fires on Maui. It also highlights actionable steps that the public can take to prevent these devastating incidents. Created in partnership with the Maui Fire Department and Maui Nui Marine Resource Council, the students deliver a powerful message that educates and inspires viewers to take action.

Land Use
Conservation
Student

Cave Keeper

Exploration and discovery define an aging caver's life who now works to preserve his fragile access.

Conservation
Water
Student

Capturing The Fire

When Louise Coghill saw the first plume of smoke begin to rise behind her parents property, she could never have predicted that in less than four hours, it would become a wall of flames, swallowing everything in its path. A photographer by trade, Louise has travelled the world documenting everything from the nomadic wanderers of Mongolia, to base life at Mount Everest. Capturing the extraordinary comes naturally to Louise, so when her family home in the semi-rural Western Australian town of Gidgegannup became engulfed in flames, her first instinct wasn’t to take shelter, it was to pick up her camera.

Conservation
Climate
Nature

Last Chair

We pollute the environment upon which we depend. An exploration of the paradox of sustainable skiing and how we can protect the places we love.

Sustainable
Business
Conservation

Protecting the River Krupa

With Western Europe’s waterways clogged by thousands of dams, Balkan countries are rallying to protect the continent’s last free-flowing rivers—before it’s too late. In Croatia's popular tourist region of Dalmatia, The Nature Conservancy and its partners helped protect the Krupa River in perpetuity, one of the first conservation wins of its kind in the region.

Water
Land Use
Conservation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.