Australia’s Nuclear Power Advocates Face Key Questions: Russell, By Reuters

By Clyde Russell

LAUNCESTON, Australia – Australia’s primary opposition party is advocating for a constructive discussion regarding nuclear power, pledging to construct seven nuclear plants aimed at replacing coal-generated energy if they secure victory in the upcoming federal election.

The conservative Liberal Party, along with its regional ally the National Party, revealed plans for five large nuclear facilities in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, in addition to small modular reactors for South Australia and Western Australia.

For a meaningful conversation about the most effective alternatives to replace Australia’s aging and increasingly unreliable coal infrastructure, there are two crucial questions that must be addressed: the cost of alternative energy generation and whether it can be implemented swiftly enough to not only replace coal plants but also meet Australia’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

While the Coalition did not provide specific cost estimates for their proposed plan, Liberal leader Peter Dutton acknowledged that expenses would be significant, yet maintained that it would ultimately lower energy costs for Australians. However, no credible analysts support this viewpoint; estimates suggest that the cost of establishing nuclear power far exceeds that of solar and wind energy complemented by battery storage and pumped hydropower.

The government’s scientific agency estimated that new nuclear power would be twice as costly as renewable sources augmented by storage options, a best-case scenario which assumes operational efficiencies from a consistent long-term building strategy.

The Coalition aims to have nuclear facilities operational by between 2035 and 2037, should they enact their policy following a victory over the ruling Labor Party in the federal election anticipated in early 2025. Although theoretically feasible, this timeline may be overly ambitious when considering the recent challenges faced by other Western nations in similar endeavors.

Nuclear plants have a notorious reputation for exceeding budgets and deadlines. A current example is the Hinkley Point C facility in the UK, where costs have skyrocketed and the start date has been postponed by at least seven years.

Moreover, the Coalition did not clarify how it intends to navigate the various political and social barriers inherent in advancing nuclear power. Federal law currently prohibits nuclear energy, so the Coalition would need to pass legislation through both chambers of Parliament, a feat that may be complicated even if they secure control of the House of Representatives.

Acquiring a controlling majority in the Senate would require a significant electoral victory, necessitating negotiations with senators who may belong to the Australian Greens or more progressive independents, which could hinder Dutton’s nuclear strategy from the outset.

State-level prohibitions on nuclear power also pose a challenge, with leaders in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland signaling their opposition to new nuclear facilities. Building a nuclear industry from the ground up would entail importing a skilled workforce of nuclear engineers and other specialists, contradicting the Coalition’s stated intentions to curb immigration.

Gaining community approval for the proposed nuclear sites could also prove difficult, even if the plants offer job opportunities to replace those lost through coal plant closures. Additionally, the planned 7 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity represents only a third of Australia’s current coal-fired generation capacity of approximately 22 GW, suggesting that nuclear alone would not suffice to replace coal, necessitating further reliance on renewables or expensive alternatives.

The question of financing nuclear initiatives remains unresolved, particularly as no Australian utility has shown interest in pursuing nuclear energy. The Coalition’s insinuation of establishing a government-owned corporation to support these initiatives raises concerns, as it seems to contradict the Liberal Party’s principles, which advocate for a limited governmental role in the economy.

Initial reactions to the Coalition’s nuclear plans have largely been negative, with support largely coming from the Minerals Council of Australia, a lobby group that includes coal industry advocates. While the council did not explicitly state it, their backing for nuclear is likely tied to the presumption that pursuing nuclear options may prolong the use of coal in the energy generation landscape.

In conclusion, the Coalition’s nuclear proposals could be seen as an expensive and unrealistic endeavor, particularly in a country well-suited for solar and wind development.

However, the troubling implication of the nuclear proposal may be that the energy discourse in Australia devolves into a partisan conflict, with the right championing nuclear and fossil fuels while the left advocates for renewables and energy storage.