OPINION | DAVID HESS
nuclear industry? An Australian
Corrosive partisan approaches to a technology enjoying global reappraisal continue to dog Australian progress on nuclear power development. It’s time to have a serious conversation about the pros and cons of nuclear within Australia’s unique energy system
David Hess, Senior VP DeepGeo
HE 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
©Alexy Kovynev
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
“They say the European kangaroos living near a nuclear power plant are paid a guaranteed minimum income”
14 | July 2024 |
www.neimagazine.com
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
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
