Labor bombs out with ideological energy stance
Labor’s anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with economics as they would like you to believe. It’s all about ideology. And that should worry you.
Labor’s anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with economics as they would like you to believe. It’s all about ideology. And that should worry you.
Yes, the much-maligned Gencost report, produced by CSIRO, is a convenient tool which produces an economic rationale to support Labor’s policy. It provides cover to Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen to repeat over and over “that nuclear will not work in Australia”, and a policy justification that is acceptable to the broader Labor base that are worried about their cost of living.
But that’s not the end of it. Recently Labor shot down a bid by Senator Matt Canavan to remove a historical ban on nuclear generation in Australia. The reasons for refusing such a change were outlined in a report, which allows us to understand in depth each of the justifications considered by Labor to continue the ban, and indeed should highlight how flimsy each of these reasons are. They simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and expose the fact that opposition to nuclear is down to ideology perpetuated by a certain faction of the Labor Party – one that indeed a significant portion of the base don’t agree with and the broader public should be concerned with.
One of the more interesting ways to critique the opposition to nuclear is indeed to apply these objections to renewable energy and the situation Australia found itself in prior to their large-scale adoption. So let’s think back to a time when Australia was significantly behind the rest of the world (especially Europe) in terms of carbon and renewables (wind/solar) adoption.
Let’s address each of the four points outlined in the recent Senate report.
Cost: At that time, was solar and wind even close to being cost-competitive as a means of generation? Certainly not – mass adoption of solar and wind was made possible because government subsidies were handed out in order to kickstart the industry, help it achieve economies of scale and technological advancement, and therefore over time bring down the cost of generation.
Let’s leave aside what has happened recently in these industries – the failure of the recent UK offshore wind auction to achieve even a single bid – and the warnings from major US operators that they may need to pull out of existing projects because even with all this stimulus the technology cannot produce the required financial returns.
Now, according to the rationale that Labor is trying to apply to nuclear, we shouldn’t have supported the renewables industry.
We should have outright banned it. But nothing could have been further from what actually occurred.
This article is not intended to delve into the complexity of modelling costs on a whole of network basis.
Suffice to say, the question of cost is not clear cut or decisively answered.
Neither should a current assumption about a technology cost be used to justify a ban on future deployment.
Economics may mean that a technology is not built, or does not achieve market penetration – but generally shouldn’t mean that it is not allowed to be built at all. This is the whole point of free markets, which are supposedly meant to underpin Western democracies.
Australia does not have the regulation, infrastructure or workforce to support a nuclear industry: This statement is not correct. Australia would indeed need to develop its existing radioactive and nuclear capable regulation, infrastructure and workforce.
This is in fact an opportunity, as opposed to a reason not to do something.
But lets again go back to the situation that presented itself for Australia with solar and renewables.
Was there a perfectly ready set of regulations, infrastructure and a capable workforce? Absolutely not.
From a regulation perspective, the government needed to provide massive incentives. Feed-in tariffs were introduced for roof top solar, changes to the grid were needed to facilitate a two-way flow of electricity (allowing consumers to feed their excess back into the grid), new transmission lines were built, hordes of new skilled workers for solar installation were trained up.
This created a broad new industry and a large employer, which has helped diversify our economy.
However, according to the rationale Labor is trying to get you to believe with respect to nuclear, we should have done none of that and indeed just shut the entire industry down.
We’re told that nuclear power is dangerous to human health, the environment, is a threat to national security and has a history of disproportionately impacting First Nations peoples.
This is an argument where fear and historical emotion is rife.
Australia is not the only country with a dark history of atomic testing for military purposes on Indigenous lands.
Many first nations peoples around the world suffered during this period.
This is a practice that we do not support.
It is, however, a period that is over.
To equate the development of a civilian nuclear industry with military atomic testing is alarmism and logical desperation at its worst.
And to say that development of a nuclear industry would “further encroach on native title and prime agricultural land” again is arguably misleading at best.
Due to its energy density, nuclear has a lower overall footprint (from physical plant footprint to the amount of mining needed) than any other energy source. Vastly less, for example, than the hundreds of square kilometres of solar panels which are proposed to be layered over vast Indigenous lands, or the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines which will blight the landscape.
Labor has also driven panic with respect to nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste indeed captures the imagination of the public, having been the subject of one too many Hollywood movies – the weapon of choice for the cartoonish villain leading to a potentially dystopian future.
The reality is far more benign. The volume is small. The standards and know-how are there.
What are we waiting for?
Jonathan Fisher is CEO of Cauldron Energy.
