Below Right: The Olympic Dam mine, 560 kilometres north of Adelaide, has the world's largest uranium deposit, as well as gold, silver, copper and iron ore.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Australia generating nuclear power
1. Nuclear energy production will help Australia reduce its carbon emissions
Those who support Australia generating nuclear power argue that this is a clean, non-CO2-emitting energy source that would help Australia meet its greenhouse gas emission targets.
They claim it is an important way for Australia to contribute to global efforts to limit climate change. They argue that Australia will be unable to meet its 2030 missions target relying on renewable energy and that it will need nuclear power to meet its 2050 target of zero carbon emissions.
Supporters of nuclear power as a means of combating climate change argue that it has lower greenhouse gas emissions than either wind or solar power. In a Parliamentary submission made on August 10, 2022, the lobby group Nuclear for Climate Australia stated, 'Nuclear energy has lower emissions than any other generating source including wind and solar. Current nuclear plants have emissions as low as 4 gr CO2/kWh. Wind is typically around 30 gr CO2/kWh but, with the addition of material's hungry batteries, emissions climb to 110 gr CO2/kWh. Solar is similarly afflicted with emissions intensities up around 70 gr CO2/kWh inclusive of batteries even in ideal conditions.'
The World Nuclear Association has also argued that making the transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar is not enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level the world requires. Though its figures do not exactly replicate those offered by Nuclear for Climate Australia, the World Nuclear Association similarly claims that nuclear power is either more or equally as effective as wind and solar in reducing emissions. The Association states, 'Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.' The Association has further stated, 'Concerted international efforts over the past 20 years have increased the amount of electricity generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources, but have failed to displace fossil fuels from the mix. As a matter of fact, in 2017, fossil fuels produced more electricity - in relative and absolute terms - than ever before.' The Association has further stated, 'Experts have concluded that in order to achieve the deep decarbonization required to keep the average rise in global temperatures to below 1.5°C, combating climate change would be much harder, without an increased role for nuclear.' The Liberal Opposition believe that Australia cannot achieve its 2030 emissions targets and that attempting to do so will damage the Australian economy. If elected, the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, plans to adjust Australia's climate policy. A government he led would step away from Australia's 2030 emissions target and away from the Albanese government's reliance on wind and solar as their primary means of achieving the country's emissions targets. Instead, a Dutton government would pledge to continue using gas as a bridging power source and keep coal power stations operational until they had been fully replaced. Mr Dutton also plans to substantially incorporate nuclear power into Australia's energy mix. He claims that the current 43 percent reduction in emissions is unachievable by 2030. He further argues that the 2050 zero emissions target cannot be reached unless nuclear power becomes one of Australia's energy sources.
In a media release issued on June 19, 2024, Peter Dutton stated, 'Nuclear energy for Australia is an idea whose time has come. Today, we are announcing that a future Federal Coalition Government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia, which has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world, to work in partnership with renewable energy and gas as part of a balanced energy mix.' Explaining why nuclear power was necessary, he stated, 'If you are serious about meeting our net zero by 2050 emissions commitments, then you must include zero-emission nuclear as part of your energy mix. Zero-emission nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon emissions. For example, a 1.1 GW AP-1000 reactor cuts approximately seven million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the road. Supporters of Australia using nuclear energy to help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions argue that nations all around the world are relying on a combination of renewable energies and nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. In his June 19, 2024, media release, Mr Dutton stated, 'No country in the world relies solely on solar and wind as Labor is proposing. By contrast, there are 32 countries operating zero-emissions nuclear plants. Another 50 countries are looking to do so. Of the world's 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards using it.'
The World Nuclear Association also claims that around the world nuclear power is becoming a viable clean energy option. The Association states, 'Nuclear energy now provides about 9 percent of the world's electricity from about 440 power reactors. Nuclear provides about one-quarter of the world's low-carbon electricity. Nuclear is the world's second largest source of low-carbon power.' The most recent world data the Association provides maintains, 'Fourteen countries in 2023 produced at least one-quarter of their electricity from nuclear. France gets up to around 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, while Ukraine, Slovakia and Hungary get about half from nuclear. Japan was used to relying on nuclear power for more than one-quarter of its electricity and is expected to return to somewhere near that level.' 2. Renewable energy sources have limitations that make them unsuitable as a sole source of power
Those who argue that Australia should include nuclear power in its energy mix claim that wind and solar power have limitations which make them unsuited to being Australia's sole sources of energy. They claim that drawing on nuclear power to supplement renewables would stabilise Australia's energy supply.
Opponents of the exclusive use of renewable power sources argue that they have significant limitations. They claim their reliability fluctuates as they are dependent on wind and sunlight which are not constants and cannot be dependably predicted. There is also the problem that their best collection points (such as coastal regions in the case of wind power) are not always located where power demand is greatest. The World Nuclear Association has summarised these concerns. The Association has stated, 'First, [renewable power sources'] maximum output fluctuates according to the real-time availability of wind and sunlight. Second, such fluctuations can be predicted accurately only a few hours to days in advance...[Finally] unlike fossil or nuclear fuels, wind and sunlight cannot be transported, and while renewable energy resources are available in many areas, the best resources are frequently located at a distance from load centres thus, in some cases, increasing connection costs.'
The Association has used the availability of wind power in Germany as an example of its apparent unreliability. It has stated, 'In Germany, with high dependence on wind, there is corresponding high uncertainty of supply. Winter load factors averaged about 25 percent over 2013-17.... Summer monthly load factors averaged only14 percent... Annual capacity factors were 17-20 percent over 2014-16. Daily average wind load factors have ranged from 2 percent to 68 percent.' Supporters of nuclear energy production in Australia argue that it would provide the additional power necessary to meet baseload consumer demand which cannot be reliably supplied by variable power sources such as wind and solar. Dr Jeremy (Jing) Qiu, a Senior Lecturer in Electrical Engineering in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Sydney, has stated, 'Nuclear power offers a reliable, base-load energy option, complementing intermittent renewables and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. By strategically locating these plants, we can ensure a robust and resilient energy infrastructure, less vulnerable to supply disruptions.'
Critics of the exclusive use of variable renewable energy (VRE) argue that its reliability is dependent on suitable storage systems, such as batteries, which allow fluctuating power sources to supply energy stored in advance of demand. Critics claim that suitable storage systems are either not yet available or are prohibitively expensive. The global technology distributor AVNET has claimed, 'A battery array large enough to store the energy from a solar or wind farm could cost more than the solar panels or windmills themselves. And that is not a one-time cost, as batteries have a brief service life and require...frequent replacement. The situation from an environmental perspective is even worse. Most modern battery types require heavy metals and other toxic materials. Not only are elements like cadmium and lithium finite resources, just like fossil fuels, but they also pose a significant risk to the environment-both during the mining process and after use.'
Some critics have stressed that renewable energy production is not environmentally neutral and can have major negative impacts both through battery construction/disposal and through the building of windfarms and solar cell arrays. Chris Moorman, a professor and coordinator of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology program at North Carolina State's College of Natural Resources, has warned, 'Renewable energy often requires more land than fossil fuel production, with infrastructure fragmenting or even eliminating high-quality wildlife habitat.'
Critics of the exclusive use of renewable power sources such as wind and solar have also argued that these energy sources have additional costs that are not always considered. These additional costs, it is claimed, reduce their supposed cost advantage over nuclear power. The British technology energy company EDNOLA has claimed that there are significant costs associated with adding a fluctuating energy source such as wind power to a national grid. EDNOLA claimed that in Britain these costs have risen fourfold between 2020 and 2022.
The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia has argued that an undeclared carbon tax is being proposed to help fund the establishment of renewable energy networks in Australia. An editorial published in The Australian on May 9, 2024, has claimed, that this carbon price 'could result in an estimated maximum of $508bn being passed on to consumers through electricity bills.' The editorial concludes, 'In the long term, nuclear energy built efficiently at scale and allowed to recoup the upfront investment across many years may be the most economical of all generation sources.' 3. Australia has abundant uranium supplies and an appropriate potential workforce
Those who support Australia developing a nuclear energy industry claim that it is foolish not to do so as the country has extensive supplies of uranium. They also note that Australia would be able to supply a suitable workforce to produce nuclear energy.
Uranium is the raw material used to produce nuclear energy. As of December 31, 2021, Australia had the world's largest Economic Demonstrated Resources (EDR) of uranium and was the world's fourth largest exporter of uranium, behind Kazakhstan, Namibia and Canada.
EDR refers to resources which can be extracted in a profitable manner. Currently, none of the uranium that Australia mines is used for local power production. The leader of the federal Opposition, Peter Dutton, has argued that Australia is wasting a valuable opportunity to increase its energy security by not using any of the country's abundant uranium resources to produce electricity. He has suggested that Australia should increase its uranium production to boost exports and for electricity generation in Australia. Mr Dutton has argued, 'At present, Australia supplies just under 10 per cent of global demand, with all our production exported. So aside from a burgeoning export opportunity, our nation has an ability to be energy self-sufficient well into the future.' The Minerals Council of Australia has supported the use of Australian uranium to produce electricity within Australia since at least 2019, stating, 'In Australia outdated regulations in some states ban the exploration and mining of uranium, and under federal law nuclear energy is prohibited. The result is that Australians are denied a zero emissions 24/7 energy source ... So, Australia has a clear choice - it can reconsider the role nuclear energy can play in a low carbon future and remove the obstacles prohibiting the development of a nuclear industry.' Australia has remained ethically aware in its export of uranium, being careful not to support the use of its uranium to create nuclear weapons. Australia's uranium is sold strictly for electrical power generation, and safeguards are in place to ensure this. Australia is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. Its safeguards agreement under the NPT came into force in 1974. Australia was the first country in the world to bring into force the Additional Protocol in relation to this - in 1997. States that have signed the Additional Protocol agree to have their uranium production monitored to ensure it is not being used for military purposes. In addition to these international arrangements Australia requires customer countries to have entered a bilateral safeguards treaty which is more rigorous than NPT arrangements.
Supporters of Australia developing its own nuclear power industry argue that it is illogical to export uranium for other countries to use for power generation and not to use Australian uranium for this purpose in our own country.Supporters of nuclear energy in Australia either claim that the country already has a suitable workforce or that it will be able to acquire one. The federal Opposition claims that its plan to build nuclear power stations on the sites of decommissioned coal power stations will provide an immediate labour supply. This has been predicted to come from the workers in these communities made redundant by the closures of the former facilities. In a Liberal media release issued on July 19, 2024, it was stated that each new plant would be able to draw on 'a local community which has a skilled workforce.'
Among those who doubt that the expertise of this labour force would be sufficient, there is confidence that they could supply the initial basis of a labour force that could be retrained. In an article published in Science Meets Business on June 13, 2023, it was stated, 'The future nuclear workforce will need a diverse range of skills, knowledge, and experience to meet the challenges of an evolving nuclear industry... It will require a concerted effort to attract more young people to the profession, an increased commitment to diversity and inclusion to maximise the skills in the profession, and the development of a '"nuclear mindset" across all industries.' The University of New South Wales is currently the only Australian tertiary institution offering a nuclear engineering program. It states, 'Its programs [are] aimed at creating the next generation of nuclear technologists and supporting Australian industry to learn more about nuclear technology.' Supporters of Australian nuclear power generation claim that other institutions would implement similar training programs if Australia decides to build nuclear power plants.4. Nuclear energy would support Australian economic growth
Supporters of nuclear power generation in Australia argue it would be of major benefit to the Australian economy. The federal Opposition has claimed that introducing nuclear power will have significant economic advantages for Australia through a smoother transition to low emissions energy, a cheaper and more reliable energy mix, and a boost to the economy via increased employment.
The Australian federal Opposition has claimed that establishing nuclear reactors on the current or former sites of conventional coal-fuelled power stations will reduce the costs and the delays of transitioning to non-emitting energy sources. Currently it is anticipated that changing to renewable power will be delayed and made more expensive by the need to set up new power distribution systems. The Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan of 2022 stated priority transmission projects are expected to cost $12.8 billion, the Plan also makes clear this will only deliver four per cent of total transmission lines required for the federal government's renewables-based plan.
In its June 19, 2024, media release, the opposition Liberal Party stated, 'A key advantage of modern zero-emissions nuclear plants is they can be plugged into existing grids. This means they can effectively replace retired or retiring coal plants and avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor's "renewables-only" system, including new transmission poles and wires. All of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills.' The media release lists the seven locations where the Opposition plans to locate nuclear power stations, all are current or recently retired sites of coal-powered facilities. The media release states, 'Each of these locations offer important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure, that is, we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community which has a skilled workforce.' The Australian federal Opposition has also claimed that establishing nuclear reactors on the current or former sites of conventional coal-fuelled power stations will have large advantages for the regions where the nuclear plants are set up. This is particularly important because the closure of the old facilities will otherwise create large-scale unemployment and local dislocation. Regarding employment in the regions affected, the Opposition's media release states, 'Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance.'
Among the economic benefits the media release lists are 'A multi-billion dollar facility guaranteeing high-paying jobs for generations to come... An integrated economic development zone to attract manufacturing, value-add and high-tech industry [and] A regional deal unlocking investment in modern infrastructure, services and community priorities.' Supporters of Australia developing nuclear power plants argue that this would not only create jobs in constructing and maintaining power facilities but would also boost employment in Australia's uranium mining industry. This view has been endorsed by both potential workers within the mining industry and by mining industry leaders. The Australian Workers Union has claimed that nuclear power generation 'could bring tens of thousands of jobs...jobs in Uranium mining are set to exceed 10,000 over the next decade, and could be several times that with a complete Nuclear Fuel Cycle.' The Queensland Resources Council stated that in the event of Australia introducing nuclear energy, '[t]he number of jobs would be in the thousands in terms of both the actual mining operation and also the processing'. A report commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia similarly estimated that as many as 22,600 direct and indirect jobs could be created by 2040 by expanding the nuclear industry in Australia.
Finally, it has been claimed that developing a nuclear power industry in Australia could have wider applications. It has been suggested that these could include nuclear desalination for water security, analysis of pollutants in water and measuring water quality; food irradiation to reduce post-harvest contaminants; radiography to inspect concrete and welds for invisible flaws; and the production of hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels.
5. Nuclear energy is safe
Supporters of Australia generating nuclear power argue that the technology is not dangerous, and that waste management issues have largely been resolved. Supporters claim there have been few major nuclear accidents, that these were avoidable, and that the technology used in more modern reactors lower the risks even further.
The World Nuclear Association has stated, 'The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining.'
The Association has observed 'There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.' Experts have claimed that each of these accidents occurred under exceptional circumstances and could have been prevented. The Association has noted, 'The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.' The International Atomic Energy Agency has stated, 'Safety measures were ignored.' The Fukushima incident occurred 'following a major earthquake, [when] a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident...' The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has stated, 'The [Fukushima Daiichi] plant would have withstood the tsunami had its design previously been upgraded in accordance with state-of-the-art safety approaches.' The Endowment's final judgement is 'The Fukushima accident was ...preventable.' Supporters of nuclear power generation argue that both these major historic accidents occurred under exceptional circumstances and that both were avoidable. They argue that such events are highly unlikely to recur. In an article published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on August 31, 2020, it was claimed of these incidents, 'They should be viewed as lessons for the future, rather than reasons to eliminate this useful, low-carbon source of energy.' Supporters of the continued and extended use of nuclear reactors for power generation claim that modern reactors are even less likely to experience accidents than earlier units. Third and fourth generation power plants are claimed to be particularly stable. GIS (Geopolitical Intelligence Services) has claimed, 'These systems use the fuel more efficiently by using more of the uranium built into the reactor core. They are economically competitive, produce less radioactive waste and are even safer. The goal of . . . these improvements is an inherently safe system - protection by natural laws against a meltdown, accidents, or human error.'
Small modular reactors of the type currently proposed by Opposition leader Peter Dutton are claimed to be particularly safe. GIS notes, 'They...use significantly fewer pumps and pipelines and can also be built underground...A core meltdown is impossible due to the low power and passive cooling systems.' Peter Dutton has accused his opponents of 'scaremongering' and has claimed that nuclear power is a 'very safe technology'. Supporters of nuclear power stations also claim that the risks associated with nuclear waste disposal are exaggerated and that Australia is well placed to deal with waste management. The largest risk is radioactivity which poses health hazards for human and other animal and plant life. Supporters of nuclear power note that the amount of waste produced is small. The World Nuclear Association states, 'The amount of HLW [High Level Waste] produced (including used fuel) ...is small; a typical large reactor (1 GWe) produces about 25-30 tonnes of used fuel per year. About 400,000 tonnes of used fuel has been discharged from reactors worldwide, with about one-third having been reprocessed.'
Currently, this waste is stored securely either above or below ground until such time as its radioactivity has decayed to the point where it is considered safe. The World Nuclear Association notes that after 40 years radioactivity has generally dissipated to the point where the waste product is a thousand times less radioactive than it was originally. Long term underground facilities are currently being developed in geologically stable areas in Finland and Sweden. Peter Dutton has explained that Australia will also have to develop such a long-term facility deep underground to store the waste from the nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines it has ordered from the United States. Mr Dutton argues that this new Australian facility could be used to store the waste from nuclear power reactors as well.