In the wake of a series of minor tremors in the Hunter region, anti-nuclear activists and politicians have wasted no time jumping on the fear bandwagon. The narrative they’re peddling is simple but misleading: earthquakes in the area make the Hunter a risky choice for nuclear power. However, a closer look at both Australia’s seismic history and modern nuclear reactor design reveals that this argument is more about fear-mongering than genuine concern for public safety.
Let’s start with the facts. Australia is one of the most stable landmasses on the planet, sitting firmly in the middle of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. This location puts it far from the active plate boundaries that produce the world’s largest and most devastating earthquakes. The largest earthquake ever recorded on the continent was the Meckering earthquake in Western Australia in 1968, which registered a magnitude of 6.5. Despite the significant shaking and ground rupture it caused, there were no fatalities and the damage was limited, even in an era when building codes were far less stringent than they are today.
Now, consider the kind of nuclear power plants being proposed for Australia. Modern reactors, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advanced Gen IV reactors, are designed to withstand seismic events well beyond anything Australia has ever experienced. These reactors incorporate cutting-edge engineering solutions, such as seismic isolation systems and passive safety features, that can handle tremors far more powerful than a magnitude 6.5 earthquake.
The Hamper Emporium
Type: Retail
The Hamper Emporium offers premium gift hampers for all occasions, featuring gourmet treats and luxury items.
Phone: 1300 459 452
Even traditional large-scale reactors, like those built in Japan or California, are designed to endure seismic events of magnitude 8.0 to 9.0. For perspective, the catastrophic 2011 Tōhoku earthquake that triggered the Fukushima disaster in Japan was a 9.0 magnitude event, one of the most powerful ever recorded. The Fukushima reactors withstood the initial earthquake without any structural failure; it was the subsequent tsunami, a secondary effect of the earthquake, that caused the meltdown. Unlike Japan, Australia does not face the threat of tsunamis from local earthquakes, further reducing the seismic risk for any potential nuclear facility.
The Hunter region has experienced a handful of small earthquakes recently, none exceeding a magnitude of 5.0. While these tremors have sparked concern in some quarters, they are nothing new. In fact, the Newcastle earthquake of 1989, which was a 5.6 magnitude event, remains the most destructive in Australia’s recorded history—not because of its size, but because it struck a densely populated urban area with outdated building infrastructure. The damage from the Newcastle quake was a wake-up call for improved building codes, not a justification to avoid crucial energy infrastructure.
The irony is palpable when anti-nuclear voices use these minor quakes as ammunition against nuclear power while ignoring the robust safety designs of modern reactors. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan, for example, withstood a 6.6 magnitude earthquake in 2007 with minimal issues. If reactors in one of the most seismically active countries in the world can handle such events, why should we believe that a minor tremor in the Hunter could spell disaster for an Australian nuclear facility?
The opposition to nuclear energy in the Hunter often lacks a factual basis and instead relies on stoking public fear. We’ve seen this playbook before: opponents latch onto any event, however minor, to bolster their narrative that nuclear power is too dangerous. The recent Hunter earthquakes are simply the latest excuse, not a legitimate argument grounded in scientific reality.
What’s more troubling is the cost of this fear-mongering. Australia is facing an energy crisis, with skyrocketing electricity prices and an unstable grid struggling to meet demand. Nuclear energy offers a stable, reliable, and low-emission power source that could play a crucial role in securing the country’s energy future. By clinging to outdated fears about nuclear safety, we risk missing out on a technology that has proven itself capable of providing clean and consistent power in countries around the world.
The Hunter region’s minor earthquakes should not be weaponized against nuclear power. Instead, we need a rational, science-based discussion about the benefits and risks of nuclear energy. The truth is that modern nuclear reactors are designed to withstand far greater seismic events than anything Australia has ever experienced. If we let fear dictate our energy policy, we’re only sabotaging our own future. It’s time to put an end to the scaremongering and recognize that the real risk lies in continuing our reliance on outdated and unstable energy sources, not in embracing the proven safety of nuclear power.
