Nuclear technology presents the best environmental outcome of any generation technology, by a long way.
But many on the green side of politics are nevertheless against nuclear. This opposition is not driven by any environmental argument. Instead, it is because of an antiquated hangover from the 1960s antinuclear weapons movement, and because many green activists have been co-opted by the commercial interests of the renewables lobby. Or it is just blindly conforming to party political position.
There is genuine debate to be had about the cost and time frame competitiveness of nuclear, and the risks of market distortion posed by a centralised role of government in delivering nuclear power. The green side of politics is now obsessed with these issues when it comes to nuclear. They have never seemed concerned in the slightest with the cost of their environmental policies or distorting markets in any other context. No, the green side of politics is against nuclear as an ideological absolute, regardless of science or facts, and in so doing are positioned against the environment as well.
Nuclear is the best electricity source from an environmental perspective. Unlike renewables, nuclear power is high density, it does not take up large swathes of landmass or place wildlife and biodiversity at risk. Nuclear can plug into the existing centralised nodes in our power grid, thereby minimising the need for new transmission investment to traipse through our landscapes. Once built, nuclear is cheap to run and lasts many decades, beyond the life cycle of renewables and batteries. The disposal or recycling of mass scale renewable infrastructure – with wind turbine graveyards and risk from toxic battery elements – may prove far more problematic than a relatively tiny amount of nuclear waste. Nuclear has a far smaller mining footprint than renewables, as renewables demand the digging up of much larger amounts of iron ore, coking coal, battery minerals, and base metals. Nuclear is zero emissions.
Nuclear is also more reliable, being both dispatchable and synchronous. It is able to run 24/7, unlike renewables, and consistently through the seasons, which even hydro power can’t match. A nuclear industry could spark a renaissance for blue collar manufacturing in Australia. It provides for high paid jobs, and could secure a strong energy intensive manufacturing base. There are far fewer potential jobs in the renewables sector, and they are much lower paid with worse conditions.
The key challenge for nuclear (political opposition aside) is the cost to build and the time frames involved. The Coalition plan to have nuclear power up and running by 2035 is probably overly optimistic. 2040 is a more achievable target. The range of costs for nuclear is wide, and the ability to keep costs under control deserves scrutiny. Indeed, we do need to have an honest conversation about cost and time frame to roll out a nuclear industry. But we also need one about the cost and time frame to roll out renewables.
Over the last two years the rate of growth of renewables has slowed to record low levels, despite Australia having our most pro-renewables governments ever (federal and state). If we are going to be realistic about the acute logistical, social licence and regulatory challenges facing renewables, and the full system cost of ever increasing renewables penetration, we must accept the pace of the renewables rollout is going to be more costly and take many years longer than hoped. So nuclear has a real chance to end up competitive on cost, social licence and time frame too.
Renewables alone will struggle to meet projected demand over the next decade – let alone the higher demand that electrification and decarbonisation of the rest of the economy entails. Having a wedge of nuclear generation in the mix could help bridge the gap. Or we can keep burning more coal.
It’s not a nuclear versus renewables proposition anyway. Nuclear could sit well alongside a renewables rollout, supported by gas, in order to bring coal generation to an orderly end. There is a plethora of challenges involved in bringing online new technology these days, amid a rising demand burden on the grid from electrification. Thus, an “all of the above” approach to energy technology is needed. Nuclear should never have been ruled out.
The only way nuclear would realistically happen in Australia is via initial government ownership, as planned by the Coalition. This is a picking winners exercise and not subject to competitive market forces. This is a problematic approach in principle, posing risks of market distortion, wasted taxpayer funds, and unintended consequences. Alas, the state of the energy market mess we now face may mean only problematic policy options are left on the table. Many years of damaging meddling by policymakers has resulted in the slow moving market trainwreck underway. We are may already be too far down the path of government interventions in our energy market to hope for market forces to return as the primary driver of investment anytime soon.
It appears Australia is going to end up spending tens of billions of taxpayer funds on picking winners in energy generation under any government, one way or another. So perhaps we might as well spend it on something that can preserve more of our environment, underpin national security via AUKUS and also support a longstanding manufacturing base, in addition to achieving decarbonisation goals.
The real market and cost challenges posed by nuclear do not take away from nuclear being the best environmental option. Yet the green side of politics – who supposedly are environmentally focused – want to stop nuclear even though it is the best outcome. And this is not the only arena where the Greens take anti-environmental positions. It is time for Australians to consider if the green side of politics is actually helping or hurting the environmental cause.
Most Australians of all political stripes value the environment and want to conserve it, while also balancing this with our economic imperatives. Many of us grew up as pragmatic environmentalists and conservationists. We still are. But the extreme green left have abandoned our cause. They appear more interested in generating hysterical headlines and rolling out anti-business policies than protecting our environment.
There are some fantastic environmental organisations. South Australia’s Nature Foundation does incredible work collaborating with farmers, communities and businesses to conserve some of Australia most spectacular and delicate natural habitat. A visit to the Hiltaba project in the Gawler Ranges is a breathtaking experience to witness the delicacy and diversity of Australia’s biodiversity, as an example. They use their donations to quietly deliver results. They actually conserve and protect Australia’s environment.
We need to see more environmental organisations using their donations to protect the environment, rather than waste it on generating grandstanding slogans and publicity campaigns. Unfortunately, Australia’s pragmatic environmentalists of the past are being crowded out by more extreme organisations who prioritise branding and competing for donor dollars over actually conserving our environment.
It is not only in the nuclear arena that the green side of politics take anti-environment positions. We all know it was the Greens who killed Labor’s carbon tax policy a decade ago – at the time one of the most progressive carbon policies in the world. More recently, the Greens also oppose Australia’s carbon credit market – because the fossil fuel industry is one of the market participants (among many others). Yet, carbon credits have been a greater force for conserving habitat and biodiversity in recent years than our national parks. The carbon market is driving mass scale rejuvenation of landscapes, wildlife and biodiversity, including reforestation on a scale never seen before.
These days, too many green activists are more interested in planting stories in the media than trees in the ground. They are more interested in being against the nuclear and fossil fuel industries than being for the environment. This extreme green side of politics plays a destructive role for our environmental debate.
Saul Kavonic is an energy analyst with MST Marquee
