Australia is experiencing an energy crisis on multiple fronts. In the short-term we are facing skyrocketing power prices, and grid stability issues. In the long-but-getting-shorter-by-the-day-term Australia's disproportionate contribution to climate change is still a massive problem. Neither of these situations is sustainable.
Fortunately, the government has a brains trust — featuring former Deputy-PM Barnaby Joyce — who are on the case. Recent months have seen a push by Joyce and his allies to alter existing legislation and allow the use of nuclear power. Joyce has even been so keen on the idea that he suggested giving those who can see a nuclear power station from their house free or reduced energy prices. Capitulating to the powerful conservative arm of his party, energy minister Angus Taylor has commissioned a parliamentary inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power.
The problem with the discussion about nuclear energy is that it is a distraction; an ideologically driven misdirection by those who are more concerned with opposing renewables and the 'green-left' than solving our country's energy problems. Nuclear just doesn't make sense for Australia at this stage of the game. To suggest it does reveals a view so blinkered by anti-green, anti-renewable ideology that it is devoid of all logic.
There are a few regular arguments made for the adoption of nuclear power: it is a high-yield, reliable and essentially carbon-neutral option for power production. Coupled with this are Australia's vast repositories of uranium, which — so the argument goes — will ensure Australia's energy independence. Yet, by any objective metric, nuclear cannot hold a (uranium-powered) candle up to renewables.
Firstly, while there is some initial carbon produced over the whole lifecycle of any form of energy, the total lifecycle emissions of renewables, for example wind power, are significantly smaller than nuclear.
Renewable energy is also considerably friendlier to the environment in other ways. For starters, nuclear power relies on uranium, which must be extracted by environmentally damaging mining. This is an ongoing process and even though uranium is currently abundant in Australia, it is a finite resource; the sun and wind, are not. (As an aside, nuclear is less friendly to birdlife than wind farms, despite what you might hear from critics about turbines and their bird-blending properties.)
Moreover, we must consider the non-zero possibility of a catastrophic nuclear disaster. Though the reality of nuclear power is more often than not mundane, the phrase 'nuclear power' evokes a number of vivid images in the mind of the average punter. Perhaps it brings up memories of the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster, or the USSR's Chernobyl (which has dramatically and gruesomely been dragged back into the public consciousness by HBO's incredible show of the same name).
"Anyone currently arguing that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is either behind the times or lying to you."
Though most nuclear power plants function without explosions or meltdowns, these kinds of events are not entirely impossible. If one were to happen in Australia, it could affect our flora, fauna, agricultural industry, and make large areas of land uninhabitable for generations to come.
Additionally, the adoption of nuclear power creates the incredibly controversial problem of nuclear waste disposal. This waste is an issue not just for a generation or two, but for over 100,000 years. Nobody wants that in their yard! This has been a particular source of consternation for First Australians, whose traditional lands are being considered as disposal sites without proper consultation or consent.
The other key arguments for nuclear, those of price and reliability, also fall in the face of scrutiny. In short, anyone currently arguing that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is either behind the times or lying to you.
In the early 2000s it was true that nuclear was the more economically viable mode of energy production, but in the past decade the price of renewable energy has plummeted and its efficiency has skyrocketed. This trend is likely to continue as economies of scale increase the efficiency of production and the output of the technology itself. It may even soon be the case that building new renewables will be cheaper than keeping our existing coal-fired stations open.
Given that it would likely take more than a decade to open a new nuclear power station (and many fewer years to deploy comparable rapidly-decreasing-in-price-renewables), it is not a viable solution to our immediate problems and simply doesn't make sense in the long-term.
The main criticism of renewable energy is that it is unreliable; it supposedly cannot support baseload power. Though this might be one area where nuclear has some strengths, there are already plans to address this issue (like Tesla's highly effective giant battery in South Australia).
The reality is that a switch to renewables is going to require a complex reimagining of our power grid. This is not a bad thing, but it requires planning and forethought. Underlying this must be a forward-thinking vision, which our current government lacks.
Disposal of renewable technology at the end of its lifecycle is also a concern for some. This is, however, another distraction. We have the technology to recycle renewables, governments and industry just need to invest in the infrastructure to facilitate this process.
Finally, there is an additional danger in adopting nuclear in that it could mask the inevitable need to transfer to renewable energy. Our world cannot afford to rely on fuel that comes from finite resources or that we have no real way to dispose of; nuclear is just another way to kick the can down the road for a future generation to deal with.
The insistence on adopting nuclear is another failure of imagination by conservative ideologues who are so opposed to any action on climate change (and by association renewable energy) that they would rather steer us to an outdated, expensive mode of power production instead of a safer, cleaner and more economically viable option. Switching to renewables should be on our government's agenda simply by virtue of being the morally right thing to do in order to avoid climate catastrophe. What we lack is not the resources or technology, but the political will.
Tim Hutton is a teacher, masters student and freelance writer based in Brisbane. He writes on politics, education, media, societal issues, and the intersection of all of the above.
Main image: Steam emitting from nuclear reactors at a plant in Aachen, Germany (Credit: Classen Rafael / EyeEm / Getty)