Nuclear energy could be a goer in Australia — if we introduced a carbon tax

Nicola McKay writes: I only ever did my homework when there was washing up to be done (“Coalition delivers the same old tired nuclear talking points at COP28”). Sometimes we choose something to avoid having to choose something else. The nuclear “debate” makes me think that a Coalition mouth would ulcerate, dry out and clamp shut if the dreaded words “solar” or “batteries” or, even more dire, “wind turbine” ever slipped from it.

I suspect the calls for the nuclear debate are the “Hey, look over there!” that allows conservative politicians not to have to address the real and immediate conversation lest they appear to offer even veiled support to the other guys.

It’s obviously daft that a country chock full of sun and wind doesn’t fully exploit this renewable resource. Coalition politicians would rather attend a nuclear conference with half a dozen countries, dodgy media and dry sausage rolls than attempt to make Australia the expert in the technology, manufacture and storage of renewable energy. As W.H. Auden wrote: “We would rather be ruined than changed. We would rather die, in our dread, than climb the cross of the moment and let our illusions die.”

David Booth writes: Treating the issue of nuclear energy with derision only cements it as a non-starter. Until all options of electricity generation are forensically examined nobody knows what the best mix of sources will be. To cross any off the list at this early stage is foolish.

We don’t yet even know how much electricity we will need in, say, 2050. We don’t yet know what transmission infrastructure will be required, nor how much of the existing network might be redundant. If storage becomes cheap enough, how will that affect generation? And what if it doesn’t? Charlie Lewis assumes that all the nuclear problems are true, despite that the fossil-fuel industry has promulgated most of them to retain market share, starting decades ago with the radiation scare campaign. He refers to the lead time of building reactors when the obvious problem of time limits kicks in when they have never even begun. Had we begun 50 years ago (as we should have to shut down coal and gas) we would now be cruising — perhaps.

The $387 billion cost quoted for one type of reactor should be measured against all other options and combinations, with a value for reliability included. The natural gas (methane) industry is leading the government by the nose, but is as polluting as coal, as satellite measurements of methane release will soon show.

Electricity generation is the biggest industry in the world, costs a great deal and we are prepared to pay for the best set-up providing we know it is the best. Reducing the list of starters according to who has the best lobbyists is ridiculous. But then, isn’t that what we always do? A mixture of power sources could be the way to go, including those we know to work.

Kerry Hennessy writes: I am not a uranium-based nuclear fan if built in isolation. If fast-breeder reactors are constructed it will address many but not all long-term nuclear waste problems. The waste will be around for hundreds of years (and that beats thousands) and passing off our problems to the next 20 generations is, in my view, unacceptable. U-based nuclear also poses “meltdown” (think Chernobyl) and terrorist target risks.

On the other hand, thorium-based nuclear reactors consume traditional nuclear waste and cannot melt down. They require a neutron generator to supply the neutrons required for the fission process. If some natural or man-made disaster damages the power supply (think Fukushima) the nuclear fission process stops and accidental meltdown is impossible. From an environmental point of view, these reactors are excellent as they cannot explode and spew radioactive waste into the environment and would allow the current stocks of radioactive waste to be removed.

The main problem with thorium fission reactors is the construction cost and timeline, which is currently 20-30 years. There are also mining issues, as in any mining venture, plus the added danger of dealing with a radioactive product. On the upside, the known usable supply of Th is greater than U.

There is also the potential for fusion reactors, like the JT-60SA experimental fusion power facility in Japan. While its potential is exciting it is far from commercially viable. There is also the requirement that for any nuclear option to be commercially viable it will require significant subsidies that economists say can be supplied only if a carbon tax is introduced.

Ian Kemp writes: To me it’s crystal clear why the Liberals want nuclear power, in fact the same reasons Charlie Lewis mentioned:

• It’s hugely expensive and can be delivered only by massive private corporations — future Liberal donors!
• Building the plants takes ages and costs always overrun — Liberal donors for decades!
• It has to be taxpayer-funded, preferably via new taxation — Liberal donors paid from taxes!

What’s not to love?

Roger Clifton writes: Nuclear provides the only realistic counter to the growing influence of gas. Renewables fans believe renewables can replace coal, but they are deluded. It’s gas that is replacing coal, all around the country.

In principle, renewables with grid-sized energy storage could replace gas entirely but (apart from Andrew Forrest) nobody is making the effort to store that much energy — it’s just too easy to invoke gas backup instead. If any anti-fossil vigilante notices the increasing gas usage, they don’t make trouble — after all, what else could be used for backup? Well nuclear power stations with heat stores could do the job.

Sure Australia could wait for other countries to make nuclear electricity cheap and rapid to install, but in the meantime we need that nuclear option to show Big Gas that its future is limited here.

Peter Barry writes: There is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Modern reactors are relatively safe and hundreds function effectively around the world. The problems lie in their huge capital cost, endless delays in construction, especially in Australia, and recruitment and training of personnel. Add to this the transport and long-term storage of various levels of radioactive waste, including decommissioned components.

The modular reactor concept is fanciful. Even if proved to be feasible and reliable technology, banks of these reactors could replace only one or two current coal-fired power stations. They also suffer from the same negative aspects as standard reactors.

The comparative cost of wind and solar is still falling. These energy techniques draw on the nuclear reactions safely locked away deep inside the sun. There really is no contest. 

Noel Wauchope writes: Charlie Lewis’ article is a welcome insight into the Coalition’s current regurgitation of its promotion of nuclear power. Yes indeed, it could never bring itself to admit that a carbon tax would be the logical accompaniment. But as the nuclear lobby is totally in league with the fossil fuel lobby, that’s obviously a no-no.

Should the Coalition be reelected, I reckon it will get its way on repealing the nuclear prohibitions. But while it’s in opposition, it’s not that easy. Nuclear power stations can’t be built anywhere in Australia — they’re banned in every state and territory. Nevertheless, you can count on the Coalition to keep up the campaign. It really doesn’t have any policies, unless you count being negative as a policy.

The scary thing is that the Coalition is now adept at the kind of language methods described by George Orwell. The modern “Newspeak” is facilitated by social media, and also taken up by corporate media. Indeed the Atlas Network advises its many associated think tanks and corporate fronts, and right-wing politicians, to adopt this very successful style.

 In essence the theme is to constantly repeat one or two simple, but rather vague phrases and sentences. It did it with huge success in Australia’s recent referendum on the Voice to Parliament — with the key phrase “If you don’t know, vote NO!”

I’m predicting the top pro-nuclear phrase will be “part of the energy mix” — carrying a reassuring feeling that nuclear power will just merge quietly into a benign energy soup of oil, gas, coal, wind, solar and hydropower. Australians will hardly notice the obscene costs of nuclear, its health and environmental hazards, its safety, proliferation and terrorism risks, its forever toxic waste problem. Nuclear power will be just “part of the clean energy solution”. 

Alas it doesn’t matter if it’s not really sensible. As the Atlas Network has proved, the method works.