As a resident from down under, there’s a new question I’ll be weighing when I cast my vote in the next federal election: going nuclear. Almost 70 years ago, Australia opened its first and only nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights. The reactor is not used for energy but instead for research, mainly to produce the radioactive dye that is used in cancer diagnoses. Since the 1950s there have been repeated attempts to introduce nuclear energy to Australia, all of which have been thwarted. Currently, most states and territories in Australia have prohibitions on the use of nuclear power. But when Australians face the ballot box at the next federal election, one party is promising to change that.
After more than two years of speculation and quiet rumors, in June the Federal Opposition announced its grand scheme for nuclear energy as the solution to Australia’s imminent energy crisis. The proposal comes at a time when Australian lawmakers are struggling to meet net zero emissions targets without endangering the energy supply.
Australia is one of more than 100 countries that have adopted net-zero emissions pledges, and is also a signatory to the Paris agreement, which requires that countries reduce emissions by 43% by 2030. In order to honor these commitments, Australia has begun decommissioning coal-fired power stations, with the most recent closure occuring in April 2023.
However, with the closure of these power stations, a critical gap in supply awaits the grid. Recognizing this problem, the government has deviated from its initial “all-in renewables only” approach, an ambitious plan to fill the gap exclusively with renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric power. Indeed, the life of Australia’s largest coal-fired power station was extended for two more years in May of 2024 — around the same time that the federal government pivoted to announce a “Future Gas Strategy” that includes gas in Australia’s intended energy mix through 2050 and beyond.
While the government has wavered on the details of its energy policy, the Opposition’s nuclear policy has remained relatively undeveloped. Granted, the Opposition has made some specific promises — for instance, to build small modular reactors, which are smaller and generate less output than normal reactors but can be assembled on site. Aspirationally, these small modular reactors would be operational by the late 2030s. Yet more than four months after the Opposition announced the seven proposed locations for the nuclear reactors, there have been no details released regarding costs, feasibility, or plans for nuclear waste disposal. This lack of detail hasn’t stopped the Opposition from continuing to tout their own policy. They have compared their proposal to the energy policy of countries like France, where nuclear energy makes up roughly 70% of the country’s energy supply.
At face value, nuclear sounds promising. Power is generated through nuclear fission where uranium atoms are split to produce energy. The heat released from fission can then be used to boil water, which creates steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity. This process does not produce any greenhouse gasses, so nuclear is a fully zero-emission clean energy source. Nuclear reactors also operate 24 hours a day and are not dependent on sunlight or wind. It’s a combination of this reasoning and a desire for energy independence that has led 14 of the G20 countries to operate nuclear power plants.
However, for a major policy that the Opposition is expecting Australians to vote on at the next election, there are many questions that still need to be answered. Small modular reactors do not exist in commercial form outside of Russia, China, and artist impressions. Australia’s own national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, has said that just one of the proposed nuclear reactors could cost taxpayers a minimum of $8.5 billion and that the cost of one megawatt hour of nuclear energy would be at least 1.5 times more expensive than wind and solar supported by batteries. That is, if the reactors are actually built — in the last 30 years, only the United Arab Emirates has been able to successfully build one nuclear power plant from scratch, a process that took 13 years.
Meanwhile, the government doesn’t seem to have a concrete alternate plan either. According to the 2023 Climate Authority report, Australia is currently not on track to meet its 2030 target to reduce emissions by 45%, highlighting the critical gap in the Australian energy grid as the government tries to both support Australia’s consumption needs and transition to renewable energy. To implement its new Future Gas Strategy, which includes gas in Australia’s future energy mix, the government must still support a transition to renewable energy which will require significant investment. According to the Australian Energy Market Operator, the government’s plan will require more than 6,000 miles of transmission lines to be built to supply energy to the existing grid.
It is not clear whether the government’s plan or the Opposition’s plan is better. Most of the debate about nuclear energy revolves around cheap talking points and name calling. The initial response from the government to the Opposition’s nuclear proposal was to flood social media with memes mocking the policy. How did the leader of the Opposition respond? By calling the prime minister a “child in a man’s body.” Perhaps this is symptomatic of a broader trend in Australian politics, as politicians focus less on policy and more on playing politics. It should come as no surprise that the percentage of votes going to the major parties has been declining in recent decades.
Australia’s next government has to strike the right balance between finding a cost effective policy that ensures energy security, meets Australia’s climate obligations and keeps energy costs down for consumers. For many voters, Australia’s future with nuclear energy remains unclear. To help the almost 18 million Australians who will soon face the ballot box, both parties should stop taking voters for granted and promote their policies with evidence rather than media grabs. Energy policy is a good place to start.
