The Liberal Party’s nuclear ambition: A naked political power play masked as energy policy

Nuclear energy will never come to Australia. The Liberal Party’s support for nuclear is all about political posturing and supporting their political donors in the resources sector.

In exploring the propagandising of nuclear energy by the Liberal Party, it’s critical to understand the context and rhetoric surrounding the issue. This latest round of announcements commenced in the final week of the recent Dunkley by-election campaign, with leader of the opposition Peter Dutton’s assertion on the viability and necessity of considering nuclear power as an alternative energy source for Australia, an argument which centres on the supposed competitive disadvantage Australia faces in energy costs compared to the United States, where companies purportedly—according to Dutton, and only according to Dutton—enjoy significantly lower electricity expenses due to their embrace of nuclear energy. Dutton refuses to engage in a substantive debate on the matter, opting instead for a blanket promotion of assorted disinformation about nuclear energy without a detailed examination of its potential benefits and drawbacks.

This false narrative propagated by the Liberal Party hinges on a critique of renewable energy sources’ limitations, with allegations about their inability to provide base load energy consistently (which again, is not correct), and a critique which extends to environmental and logistical concerns associated with renewable energy infrastructure, such as wind turbines. Dutton’s remarks, however, encapsulate a broader political strategy employed by the Liberal Party, which oscillates between endorsing—when they’re in opposition—or ignoring nuclear energy when they’re actually in the government. This pattern reveals a tendency to leverage nuclear energy as a political tool rather than a genuine solution to Australia’s energy challenges.

Critically, the Liberal Party’s approach to nuclear energy reflects a broader issue of political posturing and media manipulation, where the discussion around nuclear power is reignited as a diversion from other pressing issues or as a means to rally support amidst political turmoil. The cyclic nature of this discussion, fueled by selective media coverage and vested interests—the Murdoch empire has substantial mineral and resources interests, including uranium, through its Cruden Investments company—underscores the manipulative tactics employed to shape public opinion and policy direction. This manipulation is further evidenced by the inconsistency in the party’s actions regarding nuclear energy, marked by a lack of concrete steps towards its development when in power, and enthusiastic advocacy when in opposition. If the Liberal Party was serious about nuclear energy, by now Australia would have a nuclear reactor in every capital city: however, they are not; it’s all about the political posturing and trouble making when they’ve got nothing else to talk about, and damaging the interests of the renewable energy sector.

The counter-narrative to the Liberal Party’s position on nuclear energy is supported by the shifting dynamics of the global energy market and the growing consensus among major fuel companies and influential figures towards renewable energy. The transition towards renewables, exemplified by companies like Shell and Exxon Oil, and figures such as Fortescue’s Andrew Forrest, signifies a broader recognition of the unsustainability of fossil fuels and the economic and environmental viability of renewable energy sources. This shift challenges the foundational arguments of the Liberal Party’s nuclear advocacy, revealing it as a outdated and strategically flawed stance.

The practical challenges associated with nuclear energy, particularly the long-term environmental and logistical concerns of waste management and the lengthy timeline required for the development of nuclear facilities, highlight the complexity and potential impracticality of adopting nuclear energy as a primary solution to Australia’s energy needs.

The Liberal Party’s propagandising of nuclear energy emerges as a multifaceted political strategy, characterised by rhetorical and emotionally-charged appeals to the electorate, media manipulation, and a cyclic pattern of advocacy and inaction. This strategy not only reveals the party’s approach to nuclear energy as politically motivated but also underscores the broader challenges and dynamics shaping Australia’s energy policy discourse.

Nuclear is unviable in Australia, on economic, environmental and political grounds

The viability of nuclear energy in Australia requires an in-depth examination of various factors including economic, environmental, technological, and societal considerations. Despite the periodic advocacy from the Liberal and National parties, and other assorted conservative fringe political parties, a thorough analysis of published reports and research suggests that nuclear energy is unviable for Australia for several reasons.

Firstly, the economic challenges of nuclear power are formidable. The construction of nuclear power plants involves high initial capital costs, long development timelines, and complex regulatory and safety requirements. A report by the CSIRO, GenCost 2018, highlights that the levelised cost of electricity for nuclear power is significantly higher compared to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, even when considering the future cost reductions for small modular reactors, if they ever become feasible for domestic markets which, at this stage, is unlikely. The financial risks are exacerbated by global trends showing escalating costs for nuclear construction projects and decreasing costs for renewables.

Environmental concerns also play a critical role in assessing nuclear energy’s viability. The management of radioactive waste poses a long-term challenge, with no universally accepted solution for its disposal. The Australian context, with its unique biodiversity and ecosystems, raises significant concerns over the potential consequences of nuclear accidents or waste leakage. Australia’s abundant solar and wind resources offer a cleaner, more sustainable path towards meeting energy demands and climate targets, undermining the rationale for adopting nuclear energy with its associated environmental risks.

Technological advancements in renewable energy and storage solutions further challenge the case for nuclear power in Australia. Innovations in battery technology, pumped hydro, and other forms of energy storage are rapidly improving the reliability and stability of renewable energy sources, addressing the intermittency issues often cited as a drawback of renewables. These advancements diminish the appeal of nuclear power as a necessary component of Australia’s energy mix.

Societal acceptance is another critical barrier to nuclear energy’s viability. Public opposition to nuclear power in Australia is significant driven by concerns over safety, environmental impact, and nuclear proliferation. This resistance is not only a reflection of the potential risks associated with nuclear energy but also a response to the global history of nuclear accidents in the U.S., Soviet Union and Japan, which have left lasting impressions on public perception.

Finally, the regulatory and political landscape in Australia is not conducive to the development of nuclear energy. The current legal framework, which includes the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, effectively prohibits the construction of nuclear power plants. Any attempt to introduce nuclear power into Australia’s energy mix would require substantial legislative changes, a process likely to be contentious and protracted, given the deep-seated public and political opposition.

The evidence from published reports and research overwhelmingly suggests that it is unviable for Australia. The economic, environmental, technological, and societal challenges associated with nuclear power make it an impractical choice, especially in light of the rapidly evolving and increasingly competitive landscape of renewable energy technologies. Australia’s energy future lies in harnessing its vast renewable resources, supported by innovative storage solutions, to achieve a sustainable, cost-effective, and socially acceptable energy system, and not in an unviable nuclear industry.

If nuclear is unviable, why does the Liberal party support it?

The motivations behind the Liberal Party’s persistent advocacy for nuclear energy, despite the overwhelming evidence against its viability in Australia, can be analysed through the prism of political strategy and financial donations from the resources industry.

The influence of financial contributions from the mining sector, including those involved in uranium extraction, on political parties and their policy agendas cannot be understated. Although the donations might seem modest relative to the overall funding political parties receive, the symbolic and practical impact of these contributions is significant. Such donations not only provide direct financial support to the Liberal Party but also establish a network of relationships and obligations between politicians and the mining sector. These connections are indicative of a broader pattern where policy positions may align more closely with the interests of benefactors than with the public good or empirical evidence regarding energy policy.

The presence of high-profile politicians at events hosted by influential figures in the mining industry further illustrates the cozy relationship between some political leaders and the mining sector. Attendance at these events is not merely a social engagement; it symbolises a mutual endorsement and a public display of alliance, as was evident when Dutton flew across to Perth for the 70th birthday celebration of mining magnate and doyen for the conservatives, Gina Rinehart. Certainly, it’s not just the Liberal Party that frequents these types of events—the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, also attended a private function organised by the billionaire cardboard entrepreneur Anthony Pratt during the week—this proximity raises questions about the impartiality of political figures in matters where the interests of their benefactors are at stake, including energy policy.

The strategy of promoting nuclear energy, despite its documented drawbacks, serves multiple political objectives for the Liberal Party. Firstly, it creates a point of differentiation from the Labor Party, which advocates for renewable energy sources. By positioning nuclear energy as an alternative, the Liberal Party seeks to appeal to segments of the electorate and the energy sector that are skeptical of or resistant to the transition to renewables, or simply don’t pay attention at all to politics. This differentiation is not rooted in a genuine belief in nuclear energy’s feasibility but in the desire to carve out a distinct political identity and to challenge the prevailing narrative around energy policy.

Secondly, the emphasis on nuclear energy allows the Liberal Party to divert public and media attention from its lack of a coherent and sustainable energy policy. By proposing the development of nuclear energy infrastructure, including naming potential sites for reactors, the party engages in a form of speculative policy-making. This approach is characterised by the promotion of initiatives that are unlikely to be realised but serve to generate debate and controversy, thereby keeping the party relevant in public discourse.

The opposition to renewable energy initiatives can also be seen as a tactic to create political challenges and difficulties for the incumbent government, aiming to portray it as ineffective or out of touch with the needs of the energy sector. This opposition is aligned with the interests of resource and energy companies, as well as some media entities, which prefer the status quo or gradual changes that do not disrupt existing business models.

Why does News Corporation want a nuclear industry?

Firstly, it’s essential to understand the broader context of Australia’s energy market and its transition towards renewable sources. Australia has vast potential for solar and wind energy, making it an attractive option for meeting the country’s energy needs sustainably. However, the shift to renewables poses a threat to traditional energy industries, which are more centralised and offer greater control over energy supplies. Nuclear power, despite its challenges, presents an opportunity for these vested interests to maintain a stronghold in the energy sector.

The Murdoch empire and similar conservative entities have historically demonstrated a preference for centralised power generation models. Nuclear power fits this model perfectly due to the large scale of plants, the complexity of technology involved, and the regulatory barriers to entry, which collectively create significant obstacles for new entrants. This environment is conducive to the formation of monopolies or oligopolies, where a few large firms have considerable control over the market.

By supporting the development of a nuclear power industry, these interests are essentially advocating for a future energy market in which they can dominate, and control the supply chain of energy generation: digging up uranium, enriching the uranium, controlling the energy supply through nuclear power generators, and having enough political clout and influence within government to keep other potential competitors at bay. This is not a potential goldmine for these oligarchs, it is a goldmine, ready-made and guaranteed.

This the goal of Rupert Murdoch, and all it needs is a compliant government to sign away the resources owned by the Commonwealth of Australia—the people—which would then be used against the interests of those citizens of the Commonwealth, in higher energy costs and long-term environmental damage.

This is the pure, naked ambition of oligarchs and an old-style, twentieth-century robber-baron mentality that is highly prevalent in the high-end Australian business community, and it needs to be resisted at every opportunity.

One of the critical arguments in favour of nuclear power is its potential to provide stable, low-carbon energy as part of the broader energy mix. However, the economics of nuclear power in Australia raise questions about its viability. The high upfront costs associated with building nuclear power plants and the long lead times before they become operational make them a risky investment, especially compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies. Yet, for vested interests such as the Murdoch empire, the justification for such an investment lies in the long-term returns of securing a dominant position in the energy market. Once established, a nuclear power industry would offer these entities the ability to control supply and influence pricing, potentially at the expense of consumers and businesses.

The prospect of increased electricity prices stems from the need to recover the substantial initial capital investments in nuclear technology. Unlike renewable sources, where costs continue to fall, nuclear power requires extensive ongoing expenditure in maintenance, fuel, and eventually decommissioning. These costs, combined with the monopolistic control over supply, would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers. The argument that nuclear power would reduce electricity prices overlooks these economic dynamics and the lessons learned from other countries where nuclear energy has not always led to lower consumer prices.

The purpose of conservative politics in Australia is to deflect and delay

While we can never be certain of this hypothetical scenario, based on what we see in contemporary politics in Australia, if the Labor government somehow was a pro-nuclear entity with well-established proposals to establish a nuclear industry, the knee-jerk reaction from the Liberal Party would be to provided opposition for the sake of opposition, look for opportunities to halt progress and hitch onto the bandwagon of renewable energies. It’s what the modern Liberal Party does: good or bad and irrespective of what it is or whatever is proposed, the Liberal Party needs to oppose and be on the opposite spectrum of the Labor government. It’s a party of political terrorists and nihilists.

Such a strategy not only stymies constructive debate and collaboration but also impedes the development of comprehensive and forward-thinking policies that address the pressing challenges of energy sustainability and climate change.

Exploring other energy options is crucial for Australia’s future. The emphasis on economic viability, cost efficiency, environmental sustainability, and the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions guides the evaluation of these options. In the global context, where the share of renewable energy is steadily increasing—30 per cent of global energy supplies—and nuclear power remains a smaller fraction—9 per cent—Australia’s focus on renewable energy appears both pragmatic, forward-looking and economically sensible. The significant investments in renewable energy infrastructure, such as the Tesla battery in South Australia, demonstrate the potential for innovation and efficiency in the sector.

The mention of small modular reactors—untried unicorn technology—further highlights the speculative nature of some nuclear energy proposals. Despite the theoretical benefits of small modular reactors, such as scalability and reduced safety concerns, their practical application remains largely unproven, especially within the Australian context. Taking these issues into account, the preference for renewable energy sources over nuclear, is not only a matter of environmental and economic pragmatism but also a strategic choice to avoid the uncertainties and potential risks associated with nuclear technology.

The assertion that adopting a nuclear energy strategy could be financially and environmentally detrimental resonates with the broader argument against nuclear power in Australia. The notion that “if you go nuclear, you go broke” encapsulates the financial risks and the long-term liabilities associated with nuclear energy, including construction costs, waste management, and decommissioning. In contrast, renewable energy presents a more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative that aligns with global trends and Australia’s unique advantages in solar and wind resources.

The political dynamics surrounding energy policy in Australia, characterised by oppositional stances and the pursuit of controversial energy options such as nuclear power, highlight the need for a more collaborative and evidence-based approach to policy-making. The focus should shift towards harnessing Australia’s renewable energy potential, which offers a viable and sustainable pathway to meet the country’s energy needs and environmental commitments. By prioritising renewables over nuclear energy, Australia can avoid the pitfalls of speculative technologies and align with global advancements in clean energy, ultimately fostering a more sustainable and economically viable energy future.