Renewed push for nuclear energy sparks a new empty debate

The National Party’s persistent and irrational advocacy for nuclear energy in Australia has once again ignited a heated debate, prompting yet another round of discussions on the feasibility and viability of such a move. Critics argue that while the party has consistently raised the issue during its time in Opposition – primarily as a diversion and smokescreen from other issues – it has failed to follow through when in government, raising strong doubts about its motivations.

National Party leader, David Littleproud emphasised the need for “commonsense solutions and political leadership” in addressing Australia’s energy challenges, urging collaboration across party lines and exploration of innovative avenues, including small-scale modular nuclear reactors – which is an unproven and hazardous technology, despite what Littleproud says.

Historically, nuclear energy in Australia has been met with resistance for a range of political, technological and financial reasons. Reports dating back to the 1950s have consistently raised doubts about the viability of nuclear energy as an industry in the country, and various industry figures and government reports have highlighted the substantial costs and unfeasibility of establishing nuclear power stations. While proponents have periodically championed nuclear energy, its potential remains unfulfilled due to economic, environmental and technical challenges.

Furthermore, the National Party’s fluctuating stance on nuclear energy raises questions about its motivations. Their renewed interest in nuclear energy seems to be driven by a desire to create political leverage and diversion, and support their vested interests in the mining sector, rather than a genuine solution to the nation’s energy needs. Advocates for renewable energy emphasise that Australia’s energy future lies in sustainable sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power, along with re-evaluating the generous long-term gas contracts the Howard government made to China, Japan and South Korea, and not within nuclear energy.

In a world experiencing more extreme weather patterns and shifting seasons, the call for a comprehensive and responsible energy strategy becomes more urgent. As discussions unfold, it remains to be seen whether the National Party’s renewed push for nuclear energy – an area that they never push when they are actually in government – will lead to meaningful policy change or continue to be mired in political rhetoric.

Political opportunism and the ideological divide

The ongoing debate over nuclear energy in Australia has been characterised by political opportunism and a deep ideological divide, and it’s clear that the Liberal–National Coalition’s repeated mention of nuclear power functions is a tactical political strategy rather than a genuine policy proposal.

In the context of their propensity to talk about energy solutions from opposition, it is essential to scrutinise the Coalition’s track record on energy policy when they were in government. When the Coalition left office in 2022, it left behind an energy market plagued by uncertainty and a lack of clear policy direction. The inability to reach a consensus on energy policy, exemplified by the National Energy Guarantee disagreement during Malcolm Turnbull’s tenure, has led to higher energy costs for consumers and an underwhelming performance in being able to extract fair and equitable prices from energy exports.

The Coalition’s has little credibility on national energy policy and while its current push for nuclear energy is partially an attempt to make itself seem relevant, its policy implementation in government has often fallen short and it is this inconsistency that raises scepticism about the party’s ability to create effective and forward-thinking policies in the national interest.

Moreover, the debate over nuclear energy is closely tied to events within the political landscape, with conservative politicians often resurrect the issue of nuclear power when faced with political challenges. Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton talked up the prospects of nuclear power in August last year, primarily because he’d been outplayed politically on the climate change legislation the federal government introduced last year. Dutton also attempted to bring nuclear energy into the national debate several months, at the time the report from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt scheme was released, a report which was highly critical of the Coalition’s administration of the scheme.

The broader energy debate also underscores a divide between political parties. The push for renewable energy, often championed by the Labor Party and the Australian Greens, contrasts with the conservative Coalition’s focus on nuclear energy and continued support for fossil fuels. While some conservative voices advocate for “green coal”, critics point out the lack of proven technology and the potential environmental and financial costs associated with such an approach. While the Labor Party’s commitment to fossil fuel industries and its acceptance of political donations from this sector also raises questions about its political motivations, at least they are making a push towards renewable energy and legislating key emissions reduction targets.

As the political landscape evolves and public sentiment shifts toward more sustainable energy solutions, the Coalition’s reliance on the nuclear energy debate as a scapegoat for other issues becomes increasingly apparent. The changing times may necessitate a re-evaluation of the party’s energy policies, focusing on solutions that align with current environmental concerns and economic realities.

The price of energy: comparing visions for Australia’s energy future

As the debate over nuclear energy in Australia continues, questions about the cost of various energy sources and the motivations behind policy choices have come to the forefront. The Coalition’s emphasis on non-renewable energy sources, including fossil fuels and nuclear power, has raised concerns among critics who seek to explore the economic viability and environmental impact of these options.

While some speculate that the Coalition’s support for these industries stems from their economic advantages, the numbers paint a different picture. Despite recent increases in the cost of renewable technologies, such as wind and solar, a joint report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator indicates that these sources remain the most affordable forms of energy. With further adoption and technological advancements, wind and solar are projected to become even more cost-effective in the coming years.

Comparing the capital costs per kilowatt, the disparity becomes evident. Nuclear energy stands at approximately $US7,000 per kilowatt, while wind power comes in at $1,700 per kilowatt and solar at $1,300 per kilowatt. For reference, coal power is around $4,000 per kilowatt, and coal with carbon sequestration technology, a method the Coalition usually promotes as a solution to greenhouse emissions control, costs around $6,500 per kilowatt—approaching the cost of nuclear energy. These figures, albeit in US dollars, highlight the considerable cost discrepancy between nuclear power and renewable alternatives.

The Coalition’s continued emphasis on non-renewable industries might be driven by a desire to maintain political differentiation with their opponents, but most of this is catering to fossil fuel interests and donors, as it’s patently evident that it’s not based on a desire to obtain the cheapest and most efficient form of energy, or to provide cost-benefits to the public. The debate extends to both sides of the political spectrum, with the Labor government also navigating the balance between economic interests and environmental concerns. While they too have ties to industry supporters, at least they have demonstrated a greater commitment to promoting renewable energy solutions and making a tangible difference.

In recent years, discussions on energy have grown increasingly polarised, with intellectual discourse giving way to political name-calling and oversimplified arguments. This polarisation often obscures the complexity of the nuclear energy debate.

There have been many investigations into the viability of nuclear energy in Australia since the 1950s and not one has recommended that it is an industry that should proceed on a scale that is currently being called for by the Coalition. If nuclear is the solution that leaders such as Dutton and Littleproud proclaim, why is it absent as an energy source in Australia after 70 years of debate? The simple answer is: it’s not a viable industry and has been overtaken by renewable energy sources which are far more effective and cost-efficient.

Certainly, let there be a public debate about the merits or otherwise of nuclear energy – yet again – but it too often descends into political opportunism and leads to more time-wasting and public distraction.

The future of Australia’s energy landscape remains uncertain. As technological advancements continue and the costs of renewable energy sources decline, the nation faces critical decisions that will shape its economic, environmental, and political trajectory. While the Coalition’s stance on non-renewable energy sources persists, the broader shift towards sustainable solutions indicates that the path forward lies in embracing the changing energy paradigm.

As the ongoing debates unfold, the hope is that the nation ultimately finds itself on the right side of history, contributing to a greener and more prosperous future.