The maniacal debate over nuclear energy in Australia

Nuclear energy resurfaces with predictable regularity but it’s a conservative ploy to change the political conversation and wedge Labor.

In the realm of Australian politics, the topic of nuclear energy resurfaces with a predictable regularity, akin to the changing of the seasons. It’s a discussion that often emerges when the Liberal Party finds itself grappling with political quandaries or crises, prompting us to question the motives behind this persistent revival.

As if we need any reminding, the recurring reports and studies commissioned over the past sixty years have uniformly concluded that nuclear energy is economically unviable for Australia, most recently, the 2019 report commissioned by Angus Taylor, who served as the Minister for Energy at the time. These comprehensive assessments have consistently pointed out the impracticality of nuclear energy from an economic standpoint. However, the Liberal Party’s persistence in advocating for nuclear power appears less rooted in a genuine desire to establish a nuclear industry and more in its utility as a political wedge issue, particularly when the party finds itself in the opposition. Curiously, despite being in power for substantial periods since 1996 – 20 years – the Liberal–National Coalition has never made a substantial push to overturn the ban on nuclear energy.

Furthermore, nuclear energy is a contentious subject in Australian politics, much like the divide between left-and-right on climate change and energy policy worldwide. The conservative right often champions nuclear and fossil fuel energy, while the progressive left advocates for renewable energy sources. This ideological schism fuels the ongoing debate over nuclear energy in Australia, further highlighting its political nature.

One recurring element in the nuclear energy discourse is the concept of small modular reactors (SMRs). The Liberal Party, and sometimes the National Party – occasionally in unison! – periodically reintroduce this topic into the public sphere. It is a circular argument that resurfaces like clockwork, despite the lack of substantial progress or change in circumstances. Even media outlets such as the ABC contribute to this cyclical discussion, sometimes repeating similar panels and discussions with familiar faces. They did this recently with an episode of Q+A, which was almost a replay of an episode just two months earlier, featuring the same guest, William Shackel, a 17-year-old nuclear activist whom the media seems to be promoting as Australia’s answer to Sweden’s Greta Thunberg – albeit from the opposite side of the ideological divide.

The constantly rekindled and recycled debate surrounding nuclear energy in Australia reveals a complex interplay of political motivations and policy considerations. While proponents argue for its economic benefits and potential role in achieving net-zero emissions, opponents emphasise the consistent conclusions of reports, emphasising the impracticality of nuclear energy on economic, environmental, and political grounds. The cyclic nature of this debate ignores the reams of comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of nuclear energy’s feasibility and its malalignment with Australia’s energy and environmental goals.

The complexity of the nuclear energy debate

As is the case on many campaigns supported and promoted by conservative interests, the ongoing debate surrounding nuclear energy in Australia is marked by a considerable degree of misinformation and misdirection. One common misconception is that the ban on nuclear energy in Australia – legislated by the Howard government in 1998 – equates to a ban on assessing its cost. This oversimplification disregards the fact that multiple government reports since the 1960s have included detailed cost assessments for nuclear energy. The Switkowski report into uranium and nuclear industries from 2006, in particular, stands out as the most comprehensive examination of nuclear energy’s costings, conclusively demonstrating its unviability.

In the midst of this debate, the involvement of young individuals in politics and energy discussions – such as William Shackel – is commendable. However, being so misguided and forcing the transformation of opinion into fact is dangerous. It is essential to ensure that such participation is based on a well-informed understanding of the complexities of the issue. The notion that lifting the ban on nuclear energy is solely about obtaining cost assessments is a tactic to mislead, as costings have been available for years, and there is nothing in any legislation that precludes any corporation or government entity to obtain costings. This debate requires a more comprehensive examination of the economic, environmental, and safety implications associated with nuclear power.

Critics often argue that renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, pose their own set of challenges, including disposal when they reach their use-by date. In reality, these technologies are recyclable, much like many other modern technologies. Moreover, proponents of nuclear energy sometimes assert that it is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy, which warrants its immediate adoption. However, these claims do not align with the available evidence. Nuclear energy is not the cheapest option, nor the “cleanest”, or else it would have gained widespread use within Australia long ago.

One of the more contentious aspects of the nuclear energy debate revolves around the disposal of radioactive waste and the risk of meltdowns. While the probability of a meltdown is statistically low, the catastrophic consequences when such events do occur are a source of great concern. Historically, there have been four major nuclear meltdowns – Fukushima in 2011, Chernobyl in 1986, Three Mile Island in 1979, and the lesser-known SL-1 accident in Idaho in 1961, with each causing long-lasting environmental and health consequences. The management of nuclear waste also presents a daunting challenge, as it remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. Incidents like Fukushima serve as stark reminders of the risks associated with nuclear power, and they underscore the need for absolute foolproof safety measures, which are difficult and costly to guarantee.

Moreover, the lengthy construction timelines of nuclear reactors, typically spanning a decade or more, do not address immediate energy needs or climate change concerns. In contrast, renewable energy sources can be deployed more quickly and are increasingly cost-effective.

The nuclear energy debate in Australia is far from straightforward. It is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of economic, environmental, and safety factors. Misconceptions and oversimplifications can hinder meaningful discourse, and the past experiences of nuclear disasters serve as a sobering reminder of the high stakes involved. As the debate continues, it is imperative that all perspectives are considered, and that evidence-based decision-making prevails to ensure a sustainable and secure energy future for Australia.

The unyielding challenge of nuclear energy in Australia

Cost, politics, and the enduring question of economic viability loom large in the ongoing discourse surrounding nuclear energy in Australia. Indeed, cost remains one of the most formidable barriers to the adoption of nuclear power in the country. Even nuclear scientists acknowledge that while advancements have made nuclear energy safer than it was decades ago, the sheer economic burden makes it an impractical choice in Australia.

This sentiment is echoed by experts such as Warwick McKibben, a conservative economist and former Reserve Bank board member who contributed to the Switkowski inquiry into nuclear energy. McKibben’s assertion is clear: nuclear energy would have been marginally viable in 2006 – when the Switkowski report was released – and has become wholly uncompetitive when compared to the rapid advancements in renewable energies in 2023.

The proponents of nuclear energy often overlook a crucial aspect of the equation – the perspective of energy companies and the practicality of their investments. Energy providers are not swayed by political rhetoric or impassioned arguments on television programs such as Q+A, or whether political leaders such as Peter Dutton wish to use nuclear energy as a political wedging strategy. They are, first and foremost, driven by the bottom line and the potential for profitable returns on their investments. At present, the case for nuclear power in Australia does not align with their financial objectives, as there are more cost-effective and less risky alternatives readily available.

In essence, the Liberal Party’s recurrent emphasis on nuclear energy appears to be more of a political tactic than a genuine commitment to the industry’s development. Their track record, spanning 20 of the past 27 years in government, demonstrates a lack of tangible action in this regard. It begs the question of whether this is merely political posturing, a way to create a point of difference leading up to the next federal election, or a deliberate distraction from other pressing issues. The broader industry and business community, characterised by pragmatic and profit-driven decision-makers, are unlikely to be swayed by these antics in the political playground.

While the proponents of nuclear energy may temporarily capture the attention of some supporters and undecided individuals, the ultimate feasibility of such a venture remains questionable. The economic impracticality of nuclear power in the current energy landscape, coupled with the evident political motivations of some proponents, casts doubt on the likelihood of substantial progress in this arena. While the discussion persists, the hard-nosed realities of economics and the pressing need for sustainable and cost-effective energy solutions are likely to steer Australia’s energy trajectory in other, more practical directions.