Română
English
The great modernist poet TS Eliot once observed that humankind cannot bear very much reality. He might have been talking about Ted O'Brien, the shadow minister for climate and energy.
O'Brien is a fan of nuclear energy. That's not a thought crime. I wouldn't describe myself as a nuclear fan - but I know we might need every available technology, including nuclear, to reduce emissions in a manner consistent with the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C. There are lots of things in life that we don't love, but might need - nuclear energy is one of those things. I'm yet to be persuaded that Australia needs it given the other abundant resources we have, but I'm open.
Not everyone who worries, sincerely and thoughtfully, about the climate crisis holds this view. But I've had an open mind about nuclear for the best part of 20 years for two reasons. The first is that technology neutrality, as opposed to various forms of idolatry or sloganeering, is the best way to solve most engineering problems. The second is when the risks are genuinely existential, limiting your scope of action doesn't make much sense.
If being open-minded about nuclear feels rash, let's remind ourselves of the existential risks we face. Allowing warming beyond existing targets "could cross as‐yet‐unseen thresholds and trigger abrupt, cascading impacts" such as the destabilisation of ice sheets leading to rising sea levels and melting permafrost, releasing massive amounts of CO2 and methane far exceeding global greenhouse gas budgets. This was from Australia's climate change department last month.
Furthermore, climate change was "likely to worsen global problems caused by rapid population growth, corruption, poor governance, weak infrastructure and conflict ... [and] likely drive migration and displacement both within Australia and in many regional states, increasing the risk of ethnic or sectarian tensions or conflict over scarce land or water resources".
I know it's Christmas.
I know we just need a tasty beverage with a tiny umbrella in it rather than thinking about this.
But these are the risks we face. We are in the climate crisis now.
If I were the federal minister for climate change, I'd remove the legislative ban on nuclear energy and instead regulate the well-documented safety risks through other legislative means. Chris Bowen has a different view. Nuclear lacks a social licence in Australia. It is also prohibitively expensive. Given these two facts, why would you chew up valuable policy bandwidth (a finite commodity when you are trying to correct 10 years of obstruction and regression) looking at the nuclear ban, when you can accelerate actual, achievable risk mitigation right now? When it comes to the energy grid, Australia can execute the necessary transition much more rapidly using firmed renewables - a significantly cheaper technology that the community actually supports.
Bowen's position is entirely logical.
By now you'll be wondering why I'm off the long run about nuclear power three days before Santa arrives. That's is an entirely fair question. Fortunately, there is a simple explanation.
This week, a new analysis from the CSIRO, in collaboration with the organisation that runs the power grid, the Australian Energy Market Operator, found that electricity generated by solar and onshore wind is the cheapest in Australia. This remans the case even when you factor in the expenses associated with bolting renewables into the power grid. This same analysis found smaller nuclear reactors was the most expensive form of technology considered in the exercise.
O'Brien wasn't happy. Big feelings ensured. Huffing and puffing. Renewables might be the cheapest form of energy for investors, "but not for consumers." O'Brien felt the "big investors that come into Australia to make money from utility scale wind and solar projects can look after themselves, but it's Australian households that I care about - even if Chris Bowen doesn't."
Dude. Come on. Can we be grownups?
Nuclear power is expensive. This is not a bolt from the blue, nor a conspiracy promulgated by the wild wokeists of the world. It's a well-established fact. These things can be measured.
When John Howard asked businessman and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski to scope out nuclear power in the mid-2000s, Switkowski concluded the government would need to legislate a carbon price to make the technology economical. Obviously energy verities have evolved over a couple of decades, but Switkowski maintained his point about the significant expense of conventional nuclear reactors in 2019, when he contributed a submission to a parliamentary committee chaired by (wait for it) O'Brien. Switkowski's view in 2019 was that there might be commercial opportunity for small modular reactors in some parts of Australia, but "we won't know until SMRs are deployed in quantity during the late 2020s."
The CSIRO's new analysis this week noted conventional nuclear power is now cheaper than it used to be. But it also points out that some of the low-cost nuclear found overseas has either been "originally funded by governments" or was at a point where capital costs had been recovered. This allows plants to charge less for their generation because they don't have to recover the costs of new, commercial, nuclear deployment. Given we don't have existing generation here, this isn't an option for Australia.
While we are on facts, here's another one. The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the United States has recently cancelled its first project due to rising costs.
Rounding out the picture, a centre-right thinktank recently acknowledged there was no prospect of nuclear energy playing a role in Australia before 2040. As my colleague Adam Morton has pointed out, Aemo says renewable energy could be providing 96% of Australia's electricity by that time.
So, let's inhabit reality. Please. It really doesn't seem that much to ask.
Persisting with reality, if the Coalition wants to propose an Australian nuclear option seriously (as opposed to pretending to explore something while weaponising large scale renewable developments that can reduce emissions now) then lots of things need to happen.
For O'Brien's foray to be something other than time-wasting, oxygen-thieving nonsense, the shadow minister needs to be explicit about how much nuclear costs compared with other technologies.
If he's concerned about the high energy costs Australian households are facing, O'Brien needs a plan to pay for his preferred nuclear generation. If the government is paying, then consumers are actually paying through their taxes. Also: where do the reactors go? Where is waste stored? How is the industry regulated?
In the absence of substance and transparency, the Coalition is continuing to have a lend of the Australian people. You'd think a couple of decades having a lend of Australians on an existential issue would be enough, but apparently it isn't.
In the Abbott era, things were simpler. It was acceptable to wonder out loud whether climate change was crap. Now, the Coalition has to say it supports net zero. It has to suggest nuclear could be the magic bullet to get us there. (Sort of) committing to nuclear, then, provides a measure of cover for the same old vandalism - thwarting the renewable technology the Coalition has spent two decades thwarting.
This isn't a contention. Like the costs of nuclear, political behaviour can be measured. The Coalition is now leading the charge, with One Nation, against offshore wind developments in the Hunter Valley. The talking points have shifted, but the objectives haven't. Instead of saying "down with wicked windfarms", Peter Dutton says "wither the whales?" There is also regular ranting about the evils of new transmission infrastructure from the Nationals. Barnaby Joyce is fronting "reckless renewables" rallies. Joyce told a rally in Port Stephens support for renewable energy was a cult and urged the crowd to fight back.
But here's the actual cult: a post-truth party of government, a group of political actors so dug in behind bollocks that feelings and facts have become indistinguishable.
In a world where facts inform policy decisions, there's a grand bargain to be had.
The grand bargain is genuine technology neutrality. The nuclear ban goes. The Coalition ends its idiotic weaponisation of renewable energy.
If nuclear power is a good idea in a country with as much sunshine and wind as Australia, then proponents will make their pitches. If firmed renewables with appropriate firming and transmission infrastructure is the cheapest option to lower emissions in electricity, that's where we end up. If nuclear is also needed down the track, if we need that break glass option, that's not ruled out.
But that would require punch-drunk partisans to prioritise public interest over relentless opportunism. Best not to hold our breath.
