Wooley: Future power options require a leap of faith

In the absence of scientific detail, I’m tempted to givemore credit to anyone who can pronounce ‘nuclear’, writes Charles Wooley.

The Coalition will pledge to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia. Multiple Coalition MPs said the proposed former coal-fired power station sites for the reactors included Loy Yang in Victoria. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

Last week I complained that we were having a debate about nuclear power without apparently knowing how to pronounce it.

Well as the story developed this week we got some policy detail from Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, as well as the correct pronunciation.

In his midweek press conference embracing the power of the atom, Dutton didn’t get it wrong. Not once.

No longer ‘nucular’ he was now talking ‘nuclear’.

And that’s a good beginning.

Still there was some ‘nucular’ proliferation.

Attacking the opposition’s vow to make nuclear energy an election issue, Energy Minister Chris Bowen strongly debunked “nucular” power.

And that was the pronunciation he stuck with throughout his press conference.

“Nucular power is too expensive and too risky,” he said while claiming, “Six out of seven of the owners of the proposed sites are not interested in hosting a nucular power station.”

Bowen also observed that “nucular power is banned by Australian law”.

He could’ve rubbed the opposition’s nose in the often-overlooked historical fallout that it was John Howard who did the banning.

But Bowen could hardly do that because Labor actually supports that ban while Howard is now on record as wishing he hadn’t imposed it.

Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese (inset) are at odds with each other over Australia’s energy future. Picture: Jake Nowakowski and Artwork by Emilia Tortorella

So, for now, Labor’s Chris Bowen is just sticking with his line that “nucular power is an uncosted unscientific fantasy”.

Although he hasn’t really defined the relative costs of solar and wind versus what he calls ‘nucular’.

The obvious thing is Bowen along with Albo (who is still calling it “nooclear”) both find wind and solar so much easier to pronounce.

If Dutton is right that the next election will be a referendum on nuclear power then Labor might run the slogan, “If you can’t say it vote NO”.

The truth is that neither of these alternatives to coal are without involving an uncalculated enormous expense along with a leap of faith into unknown territory.

We will need to install 40 wind turbines across Australia every month until 2030 to reduce our emissions target by 43 per cent.

And the calculation for solar panels will call for the installation of 22,000 every day to reach 60 million by 2030.

The Coalition will pledge to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia. Multiple Coalition MPs said the proposed former coal-fired power station sites for the reactors included Loy Yang in Victoria. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

Then we will need 10,000km of new transmission lines to plug us into those widespread wind and solar farms.

But if you think that’s a lot, the protagonists assure us that it amounts to just 37cm of cable per Australian resident.

Like you probably, I am scratching my head not knowing what set of figures to believe.

I am still agnostic about how we tackle our energy future, but I do believe for our kids’ and grandkids’ sake we can’t carry on with business as usual.

Australia has about 40 per cent of the world’s known reserves of uranium. We export $812m worth of the stuff every year, but won’t use it ourselves.

Much in the same way Labor advocates exporting 355 million tonnes of coal worth $127bn. But they won’t burn it at home.

Apparently, the carbon-dioxide emissions from coal remain in the country that burns the stuff. Presumably just as radiation from a nuclear disaster remains within national boundaries.

Then there is the problem of storing the radioactive waste.

Some material will decay within a few hours. Some thousands of years or longer. Nationals leader David Littleproud did a lot to put my mind at rest this week. He told us a 400-megawatt nuclear plant would produce no more waste per year than could be contained in an empty Coca-Cola can.

One of the creatively comical images and memes depicting Peter Dutton's announcement for nuclear power plants across Australia. Picture: Supplied

Maybe not politically, but certainly geologically Australia is the most stable country in the world. There are thousands of square kilometres of outback South Australia where geologically nothing has moved across vast reaches of time.

The only point to remember will be, “Where the hell did we bury that coke can?”.

Things can be forgotten so quickly. It’s only six years since the Hodgman Liberals conjured up Hobart’s underground bus mall. Already we have forgotten where that is buried, presumably lost forever along with all those buses which are no longer on the road.

This doesn’t matter in Tasmania where again nothing has moved across vast reaches of time.

But we can only hope the federal Libs do a better job of remembering where they buried those radioactive coke cans.

Any idiot who can Google is an expert, especially when experts disagree. As they always do on the subject of nuclear power. But to all the keyboard warrior citizen-scientists out there, can I pass on the first and best piece of reporting advice I was ever given.

Decades ago, the ABC Hobart newsroom chief of staff, the unforgettable John Martin, told me: “There’s only two questions in journalism. What have they got to say and who’s paying them to say it.”

There’s billions of dollars in play whether for renewables or for nuclear and there are too many conflicting expert opinions to count. For every statistic I have quoted in this article you will find another quite contrary.

Most of the experts are singing for their supper.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be paid for arguing a case you believe in. But it should be made clear.

Meanwhile, as far as the political antagonists are concerned, in the present absence of scientific detail and solid economic costing, call me old-fashioned but in the debate about nuclear I’m tempted to give a little more credit to anyone who knows how to pronounce the word.

Charles Wooley is a Tasmania-based journalist.

Originally published as Wooley: Future power options require a leap of faith