Nuclear power might be worth considering … but
Professor John Quiggin writes in Inside Story (11.12.14) that: ‘There is still a chance for nuclear power to contribute to decarbonisation of the global economy in China and other countries with an existing program or the state power to force through a crash program. But these conditions don’t exist in Australia, and there is no serious prospect that they will do so in time to play a substantial role in decarbonisation. Anyone who pretends nuclear power is a serious option for Australia under current conditions is dreaming or, worse still, deliberately diverting attention from the real issues.’
- Tell them they’re dreaming »
- Making sense of nuclear – what’s changed in the debate? »
- The idea of producing nuclear energy in Australia before 2040 is absurd »
- Nuclear reactors called SMRs are being touted as possible energy source for Australia »
- Nuclear becomes latest round in energy wars »
- Nuclear energy policy emerges as Queensland election issue »
- Nuclear power should be allowed in Australia – but only with a carbon price »
- Over reactor: the economic problems with nuclear power »
- Yes, Australia is buying a fleet of nuclear submarines. But nuclear-powered electricity must not come next »
- Australia’s net zero plan includes ‘small, modular nuclear reactors’ »
- Uranium prices are soaring, and Australia’s hoary old nuclear debate is back in the headlines. Here’s what it all means »
- Nuclear power too expensive and slow to be part of Australia’s plans to reach net zero, study finds
If the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive
TJ Ryan Foundation Research Associate, John Quiggin, writes in The Conversation (10.6.22) about the federal Coalition’s push to include nuclear power in considerations of a low-emissions energy mix. The author suggests that renewed interest in nuclear energy will go nowhere unless those in office talk seriously about carbon pricing.
‘The idea of nuclear power in Australia has been hotly debated for decades. Most of this discussion has been unproductive, focusing on symbolism and identity politics rather than the realities of energy policy. For that reason alone, we should welcome the commitment by opposition party leaders David Littleproud and Peter Dutton to a mature conversation about nuclear power, free of political taboos.
‘Far and away the most important such taboo is the unwillingness of either Labor or the LNP to consider an effective price on carbon. A string of inquiries into nuclear power such as the 2006 Switkowski Review and the 2016 South Australian Royal Commission concluded nuclear power will never be commercially viable without a high price on carbon dioxide emissions.
‘The reasoning behind this conclusion is simple. Nuclear power directly competes with coal-fired electricity as a source of continuous 24-hour generation. But building nuclear plants is much more expensive than new coal-fired plants.’
- If the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive »
- Dutton goes nuclear: How Liberals chose irrelevance as an energy policy »
- Dutton lobs a nuclear bomb into future energy debate »
- Dutton flags switch to nuclear power »
- Old and costly, nuclear energy has reliable friends »
- Qld energy minister rejects nuclear power »
- Peter Dutton says he’s ‘not afraid’ of nuclear debate after advocate named shadow energy minister »
- ‘Chasing unicorns’: NSW Liberal minister rejects federal opposition push for nuclear power »
- Is nuclear energy an essential weapon in the fight against climate change – or a toxic white elephant? »
- The Coalition didn’t do much on nuclear energy while in office. Why are they talking about it now? »
- Nuclear power unlikely for Australia but let’s have the debate »
- Why Australia should stop talking up nuclear’s role in $9 trillion energy challenge
- Replacing Australia’s retiring coal power stations with small nuclear reactors could cost $387bn, analysis suggests