The politics of fear is one that politicians globally have used to their advantage over the years. There is nothing like a good scare campaign to mobilise the community to win a vote.
In Australia, nuclear is the red button topic that seems to create division like no other every time it is raised. Like most scare campaigns, the positives and negatives are wildly exaggerated to suit that side’s argument, with a vagueness of facts providing just enough cover.
This week, the Federal opposition unveiled its nuclear strategy that it plans to take to the next election as its centrepiece of ‘Net zero by 2050’ initiatives.
In this article, we look at the positives, negatives and the holes in each side’s arguments.
Australia has the largest uranium resources and is one of the largest uranium producers globally, with ~4,500 tonnes of uranium oxide produced per year at BHP’s Olympic Dam mine in South Australia. The mine has been operating safely since 1988 when it was under the control of Western Mining Corporation.
Due to a prohibition on nuclear power, all uranium produced in Australia is currently exported. Proponents argue that ‘nuclear’ has been a feature of Australian industry for decades and that this is just an evolution of that. An example of this evolution is the plan to buy and build Virginia class submarines under the AUKUS agreement, with small nuclear reactors sailing our waters and docking at capital city ports for decades to come.
Safety
Opponents of nuclear power often raise the Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents as key reasons to oppose it. Spurious numbers of deaths and injuries are quoted, often without foundation or as vague numbers like ‘thousands’ or ‘hundreds of thousands’.
Nuclear proponents will quote that there were 31 deaths attributable to Chernobyl and only 1 at Fukushima, however opponents will also, quite rightly, include the thousands who suffered from radiation exposure and suffered in the subsequent years.
Interestingly, these numbers pale in comparison with the deaths associated with coal fired power plants. A study by researchers at the University of Texas in 2023 indicated that there were 460,000 deaths that could be connected to coal fired power from 1999-2022.
By focusing on a few incidents, opponents of nuclear gloss over the fact that there are over 400 nuclear power plants around the world that have operated safely, without incident, for generations.
Costs
The Coalition ‘policy’ released this week was lacking in detail, particularly with regards to costs. All that was really offered up was a list of sites for future consultation and a plan that the Federal Government would build, own and operate the facilities, in the same way as Snowy 2.0.
It’s worth noting that Malcolm Turnbull announced Snowy 2.0 in March 2017 as a plan to deliver 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy for $2 billion, with first power to be delivered in four years. That price tag has now blown out to over $10 billion with a few years still to go until the lights get switched on from it.
Coalition talking points refer to over 28,000km of transmission infrastructure required under Labor’s plan to hook up all of the solar and wind farms throughout the country. By utilising existing transmission infrastructure currently being used by coal, this is a cost that doesn’t need to be borne by taxpayers/ electricity consumers. This is a fair point, however it’s likely that the existing transmission lines will need upgrading/ replacing at some point in the future.
Timing
Up until this week’s announcement, the Opposition had been heralding the emergence of small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) as a new, safe, low-cost technology to calm all of the doubters. All this sounds great, however the new plants being touted either haven’t been built or are in the early stages of construction, putting the cost and build time claims in some doubt.
It was telling then that the Opposition policy only had a minor focus on SMNRs limited to two locations and seems to indicate a preference for large scale energy production. These plants take a long, long time to get up with even the proponents conceding there is unlikely to be transmission from a new nuclear plant before 2037.
Like Malcolm Turnbull with Snowy 2.0, all of the politicians promoting this nuclear future will be well gone from the public arena by then, with the delivery left to the next generation of pollies, scientists and engineers.
Versus Solar and Wind
Labor, the Greens and Teals have campaigned for and promoted renewable energy sources like solar and wind as essential in order for the country to meet its international climate obligations and limit global warming.
This embrace has seen the proliferation of renewable developments anywhere and everywhere on the basis that they can connect into the grid and start selling power. This has resulted in underdevelopment in required areas and overdevelopment in others, often without any central co-ordination.
On the Coalition side of politics, which has historically paired inner city wealthy Liberal voters with rural Nationals, the opposition to renewables has often been on taxpayer incurred costs and the impact on farming land. Why spend money now when technologies are being developed so fast that it will likely be a fraction of the cost in a decade’s time?
After a significant period of privatisation of assets on the belief that private operators are more efficient than the Government, it is telling that Snowy 2.0 and ‘Nuclear 1.0’, both Coalition initiatives are to be Government funded and operated.
Politics of Fear
The Opposition has elected to go for a ‘big target strategy’ heading into the next Federal election, expected within the next 12 months. Historically in Australian politics this has been a pretty big gamble. John Hewson tried it with the GST, Julia Gillard with carbon pricing and Anthony Albanese with the Voice.
There is no doubt that nuclear will be a big feature of the next election campaign, with overblown claims and rubbery figures being slung about by both sides of politics.
Given the widespread use of nuclear power globally and Australia’s position as holding significant uranium resources, it absolutely makes sense for a proper debate to be held on the matter. The debate needs to involve detailed information on costs, safety, timing, jobs and economic impacts so that voters can make an informed choice.
Given that the deputy Opposition leader was on breakfast TV this week already walking back the selected sites to those where preliminary community consultation will start, its unlikely that the detail will be forthcoming anytime soon.
White Noise communications is provided a fee for service working with companies which may have exposure to commodities or securities mentioned in these articles. All articles are the opinion of the author and are not endorsed by, or written in collaboration with, our clients.
Photo by Kilian Karger
