The nuclear industry is full of Australians. This is surprising for, as an Australian, I am painfully aware that the country is deeply conflicted on the subject of nuclear energy. To be born and raised in Australia is to be anti-nuclear by default. The subject was barely taught in schools, and if it was mentioned it was merely a statistic or casually dismissed as an option. In the best case it might have featured on the ‘issues curriculum’.
This was my experience growing up 30 years ago, but watching the tribal politicisation and often toxic media coverage that surrounds nuclear energy today it’s hard to imagine things being any different.
Witnessing the Australian nuclear debate and media coverage is like entering the Twilight Zone. Biased reporting is rife and stories are often filled with inaccuracies and quotes from anti-nuclear organisations. Being charitable, one could say that the level of nuclear knowledge is simply not there yet. A less charitable interpretation is that many people who don’t really have a clue what they’re talking about are not afraid to speak their mind.
Perhaps this is not surprising for a country where almost all nuclear energy facilities have been prohibited under a federal law that dates back to 1998. It’s a long way from Canberra to the closest operating nuclear power plant! That said, more Aussie politicians should book a nuclear site visit or two before opening their mouths.
In Australia right now, nuclear is not simply a class of technologies with assorted pro and cons, but rather a statement of tribal identity. For instance, last year Senator Karen Grogan claimed that the nuclear industry self-reported that its costs were a ‘prohibitive factor’ to expansion. The senator was in fact referring to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report – a long-running annual anti-nuclear publication that arguably trades on this exact confusion. This was pointed out to her, but no correction was ever issued.
The ruling (Labour) party regularly fearmongers in an attempt to capitalise on the opposition (Liberal) party’s newfound pro-nuclear stance. Why bother with a serious conversation about energy futures and trade-offs when you can try to scare the electorate with the idea of a nuclear plant being forced upon them?
The fact is that the Australian electricity mix remains dominated by fossil fuels. Absent a low-carbon baseload option, the country will find it extremely hard to kick these off the grid, even noting the current rapid growth of renewables. It’s also pretty safe to guess that, as a democracy, any nuclear energy programme in Australia would involve a national site-selection process and extensive outreach and engagement before projects move ahead.
Most of the rest of the world has moved past the ‘nuclear is scary’ phase to more nuanced takes of where it fits into an individual energy system. The question isn’t so much nuclear energy ‘yes or no’ – it’s ‘how much nuclear?’, ‘what kind?’, ‘What applications can it be used for?’ and, crucially, ‘how can it be implemented cost effectively and safely?’
Nuclear will not be the right answer for every country. However, there should at least be a balanced assessment with all options initially on the table. This is impossible to achieve when your starting point is that nuclear energy is illegal. You can’t expect to get a neutral or particularly rigorous cost analysis from your national market operator when there are no realistic prospects a nuclear plant could legally get built.
As for other countries, in the USA there is now bipartisan support for nuclear energy between Republicans and Democrats, and a broad chorus of support for the culture of innovation and emerging start-up companies that are working on new technologies. This is alive and vibrant in Canada also.
In the European Union a coalition of nuclear supportive countries has emerged post-Brexit which is fighting for nuclear energy to not only be accepted as a sovereign right of member states, but also so that it receives a similar level of support as offered to renewables. The recent announcement that Estonia will formalise its nuclear programme is another (welcome) sign of the times.
Head to Africa and many governments are trying to figure out how they can build nuclear energy sooner. Here, energy shortages serve as a constant reminder of how essential a reliable supply is to comfortable living and modernity. These counties are often forced to use more polluting alternatives and are held back on nuclear by a lack of infrastructure, governance and finances.
Nuclear energy is growing steadily in China and about to grow in India. New nuclear is also back on the cards in South Korea and even, potentially, Japan. In South
East Asia – Australia’s nearest neighbours save for New Zealand – nuclear energy is getting set to debut with the Philippines currently leading the pack. Newcomer countries in multiple continents are pressing ahead with their programmes.
Against this backdrop and resurgent global enthusiasm, the nuclear debate in Australia comes across as dreary and painfully out of touch.
Australians that work in the nuclear sector typically possess a contrarian mindset. Most have had to go through a conversion experience at some point and will have fought for their corner against friends and family.
Mention that you work in nuclear energy in London these days and nine times out of ten the reaction will be someone wondering why the UK isn’t building more plants. There’s no need to think twice about answering the question ‘what do you do’, unless for some reason you don’t wish to have a conversation about climate and energy security.
But across the ocean those who advocate for nuclear in Australia are frequently met with character attacks and slander. To be a voice for nuclear down-under is to stick your head above the parapet and immediately draw fire. It must be emotionally draining, and those individuals that brave this deserve our utmost respect.
A special shout out goes to the former Bright New World team, the Australian Nuclear Association and Will Shackel for pushing the boulder up the hill. May it finally stay there one day. Tribute is owed to the late-great Ian Hore-Lacy, whose efforts likely changed the course of the global nuclear debate more than anyone realises.
The irony of this internal conflict is that, in many ways, Australia is already a nuclear country. It is home to one of the world’s most advanced medical and research reactors. It also boasts an enviable uranium mining sector and enormous reserves of the mineral. Some of the more promising nuclear fuel cycle technologies – synroc for the immobilisation of nuclear waste and laser enrichment – are Australian inventions. There is already a proud nuclear heritage in the country and little doubt that if a domestic nuclear power sector was allowed to take root, it would be truly exceptional.
That Australia is now acquiring nuclear submarines simply seals the deal. The synergies between a nuclear navy and civil nuclear power sector are too large to ignore. Those working on this on both sides of the political divide must surely be aware. One day the country will let go of outdated ideology and start building nuclear power plants. Let’s just hope for the sake of bright young Australians and the global climate that this comes sooner rather than later.
Author: David Hess, Senior VP, DeepGeo
