Opposition to nuclear power among elites is short-sighted

Among these dissenters, some millionaires are advocating against the integration of what could be the most reliable and cleanest source of energy into Australia's energy mix.

They say that whereas nuclear energy might be suitable for other nations, it is not a viable option for Australia. It's disingenuous, to say the least.

As someone who has conducted extensive due diligence on nuclear energy, I find myself in stark disagreement with these assertions.

My travels to the US, Canada, Europe and the UAE have exposed me to the overwhelming bipartisan support for nuclear technology, driven primarily by the urgent need for clean energy solutions to mitigate the impending climate crisis.

This bipartisanship is also seen at the level of left-of-centre think tanks I met with such as Third Way and Data for Progress in the US.

In Finland, The Green Party is demanding the reform of current energy legislation to streamline the approval process for small modular reactors SMRs, and in Sweden, parliament has abandoned its 100 per cent renewable energy target due to short-term energy security concerns. Instead, it plans to join other European nations in constructing new nuclear plants.

There are four main points these elites argue as the reasons for Australia to dismiss nuclear power, each of which I find lacking in substance.

Firstly, they say that SMRs are far away from becoming a commercial reality. This assertion disregards the commercialisation of SMRS in China and the Western world.

The burgeoning demand for nuclear power globally, evidenced by the surge in uranium prices and SMR bids, underscores the urgency of Australia's involvement.

Secondly, they claim that nuclear energy cannot compete economically with renewables. They cite the CSIRO's GenCost which calculates that an SMR starting construction in 2030 would produce power for $212-$353/MWh, while power from new wind and solar sources would cost $69-101/MWh.

It's worth noting that the CSIRO's cost assessment seems to overlook critical factors such as potential blackouts, the increasing costs of critical minerals and rare earth minerals essential for renewables and overlooks the durability and longevity of power generation technologies.

SMRs boast an anticipated lifespan of 60-80 years, far surpassing the average 15-year lifecycle of wind turbines and solar panels. This longevity, if realised, would ensure sustained energy production, and translate into substantial cost savings over time.

Long-term viability studies show that countries with significant nuclear capacities enjoy comparatively lower energy costs. Ontario is a good example to demonstrate the affordability of nuclear energy, supplying about 60 per cent of the province's electricity needs, contributing to low electricity costs for Ontario residents compared to other parts of Canada.

Thirdly, the notion that nuclear energy will take too long to materialise and won't contribute significantly before the 2040s is challenged by my visit to the Barakah Nuclear Power Station in Abu Dhabi.

There, the UAE managed to construct four large reactors within just six years, showcasing that with determination, substantial progress can be achieved rapidly.

It's also true that nuclear energy offers substantial financial benefits.

I've learnt from the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) that the $20 billion investment in the Barakah project has yielded impressive returns, including contracts totalling $6.7 billion for green steel and aluminium production. Beyond financial gains, nuclear power also generates job opportunities within the burgeoning nuclear energy sector.

The final argument by the elites suggests technical difficulties in integrating nuclear power into the grid.

However, nuclear energy can leverage existing infrastructure without extensive transmission networks. It's a pragmatic solution that circumvents the need for disruptive farming rural land acquisitions and costly expansions.

Notably, the US Department of Energy (DOE) highlights that the retrofitting of retired coal power plants into new nuclear power plants could yield significant savings, potentially reducing construction costs by up to 35 per cent.

As the CEO of an environmental charity, I'm dismayed by the short-sighted opposition of affluent individuals whose vested interests overshadow pragmatic energy solutions and care for the environment.

READ MORE:

Any comments by millionaires on energy-related matters should be accompanied by a disclosure of their financial conflicts of interest to ensure transparency and accountability.

It's a battle between the privileged few dictating the narrative and ordinary Australians struggling to afford skyrocketing household bills.

The government, in my view, is dismissing the need for reliable, affordable, and clean baseload power, perpetuating an unjust transition where only the affluent can embrace renewable.

Nuclear energy offers a pathway to equitable energy access for all Australians, akin to the benefits Ontarians enjoy.

It's time we heed the call for a sustainable energy future that leaves no one behind.