Time to go nuclear before we run out of usable power

In a properly planned energy transition, it would make sense to consider upfront all options to replace existing sources of generation with more efficient ones that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions using existing network infrastructure. The fact that nuclear is only now being put forward as a proposal by the Dutton opposition to replace coal-fired power plants when they are retired is an alarming reality, given the high costs and big risks being faced in our increasing dependence on intermittent technologies. The fact both sides of politics have been unwilling to support changing the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to allow nuclear to even be considered is testament to the political cowardice that has led to the situation we have today.

By any measure, the Albanese government’s decarbonisation agenda – which requires 82 per cent of power to come from renewable sources by 2030 – is already well off course. The transition is characterised by higher-than-expected costs and lower-than-promised returns. There can be little confidence that things will be turned around quickly, given the obstacles that keep appearing. This includes technical problems with big-ticket projects such as the Snowy 2.0 hydro-electricity scheme.

It is also apparent that community sentiment in favour of the renewable transition is sorely tested by proximity to the projects that will be required. Onshore wind farm developments are under pressure in Victoria because of the potential impact on protected brolgas. Queensland is revising its planning laws because many residents have decided the environmental cost and loss of amenity in wind farm developments in environmentally sensitive areas do not stack up. Offshore wind proposals can expect a similar fate to that being experienced by efforts to build the $20bn worth of high-voltage transmission lines that are needed to make the renewables-dependent electricity network function. It is for these reasons that the Coalition’s timid embrace of nuclear must be urgently considered.

Claims nuclear plants are too expensive and communities will not accept them must be put to the test. Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has provided evidence for the defence of nuclear in what is happening in other traditionally coal-dependent communities: Wyoming in the US and Poland in Europe. A Bill Gates-backed company, TerraPower, is building a small nuclear reactor in Wyoming that the Microsoft founder says can help “solve our climate goals” and “get rid of the greenhouse emissions without making the electricity system more expensive and less reliable”.

The TerraPower technology, called Natrium, is fully backed by the US Department of Energy and is designed to integrate into grids with high penetrations of wind and solar. A similar transition is under way in Poland and, contrary to what we were told would happen in Australia, local communities in the US and Poland are keen to be involved. Consultants working on the proposals say this is because workers in coal centres have a high energy-IQ; they understand why energy matters, and what the risks and opportunities are.

It is reasonable to question the energy-IQ of those leading Australia’s low-emissions transition. This is particularly so given the facts exposed by Claire Lehmann that put to the sword claims that renewables are the cheapest option – because they do not take account of the billions of dollars needed for firming, storage and transmission upgrades that will be spent prior to 2030.

By putting nuclear on the table for proper consideration, the federal opposition is doing what should have been done at the outset. Given the imminent risks, removing the legislative ban on considering nuclear energy should be a bipartisan priority.